public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102540] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r12-476-gd846f225c25c5885 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 06:19:40 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-102540-4-3LEFiwqFLp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-102540-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102540 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102540 > > --- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> --- > > > > > > It removes a > > > relationship between c_10 and _2. The reason ranger no longer can fold _2 == 0 > > > is because the sequence is now: > > > > > > a.0_1 = a; > > > _2 = (unsigned int) a.0_1; > > > b = _2; > > > _6 = a.0_1 & 4294967295; > > > c_10 = _6; > > > if (c_10 != 0) > > > goto <bb 3>; [INV] > > > > > > We do not find _2 is non-zero on the outgoing edge because _2 is not related to > > > the calculation in the condition. (ie c_10 no longer has a dependency on _2) > > > > > > We do recalculate _2 based on the outgoing range of a.0_1, but with it being a > > > 64 bit value and _2 being 32 bits, we only know the outgoing range of a.0_1 is > > > non-zero.. we dont track any of the upper bits... > > > 2->3 (T) a.0_1 : long int [-INF, -1][1, +INF] > > > And when we recalculate _2 using that value, we still get varying because > > > 0xFFFF0000 in not zero, but can still produce a zero in _2. > > > > > > The problem is that the condition c_10 != 0 no longer related to the value of > > > _2 in the IL... so ranger never sees it. and we cant represent the 2^16 > > > subranges that end in [1,0xFFFF]. > > > > > > Before that transformation, > > > _2 = (unsigned int) a.0_1; > > > b = _2; > > > c_10 = (long int) _2; > > > The relationship is obvious, and ranger would relate the c_10 != 0 to _2 no > > > problem. > > > > I see - too bad. Note the transform made the dependence chain of _6 > > one instruction shorter without increasing the number of instructions > > so it's a profitable transform. > > > > Btw, the relation is still there but only indirectly via a.0_1. The > > old (E)VRP had this find_asserts(?) that produced assertions based > > on the definitions - sth that now range-ops does(?), so it would > > eventually have built assertions for a.0_1 for both conditions and > > allow relations based on that? I can't seem to find my way around > > the VRP code now - pieces moved all over the place and so my mind > > fails me on the searching task :/ > > We do know that a.0_1 is non-zero on that edge: > 2->3 (T) a.0_1 : long int [-INF, -1][1, +INF] > > the problem is that we can't currently represent that the bitmask operation > causes all patterns ending in 0x00000000 to not occur.. we just leave it at > ~[0,0]. which isn't sufficient for this use case. Hmm, but we do have nonzero bits on SSA where we also store global ranges, so there is a way to store the info and you could intersect the sliced range produced from it with the range you got? > we don't currently track any equivalences between values of different > precision.. (even though ranger once did). Handling it as a general > equivalence was fraught with issues. > > We might be able to add a new equivalence class "slice" or something.. I had > considered it but hadn't seen a great need case. This would make _6 a 32 bit > slice of a.0_1 with range [1, 0xffffffff]. > Then when we are querying for the cast > _2 = (unsigned int) a.0_1; > we could also query the 32 bit equivalence slices of a.0_1, find _6, and get > the outgoing range of [1,0xffffffff].. and apply that value. > > It would probably resolve an entire class of things where we don't recognize an > equivalence between a cast and a bitmask of equivalent precision. > > This would also mean the reverse would apply.. ie if we instead branched on _2 > != 0 we would also understand that _6 will be non-zero. I believe tracking known zero/one bits in addition to a range is more useful - would that help in this case?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-05 6:19 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-30 9:27 [Bug tree-optimization/102540] New: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0) theodoridisgr at gmail dot com 2021-09-30 10:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/102540] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r12-476-gd846f225c25c5885 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-30 12:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-30 17:39 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-10-01 21:02 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2021-10-04 6:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2021-10-04 17:15 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2021-10-05 6:19 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message] 2021-10-05 13:59 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2022-01-20 9:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-20 14:42 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2022-05-06 8:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/102540] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-07-26 13:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-13 15:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-13 17:03 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-102540-4-3LEFiwqFLp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).