[Bug c/106892] Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #3)
> Yes, I reduced it too much. Here is the new one with return value in g()
> function.
> 
> a, b, c, d, e;
> f[8];
> g() {
>   while (a)
>     a >>= 4;
>   return 0;
> }
> h(i) {
>   if (i >= '0')
>     return i - '0';
> }
> j(i) {
>   b = 2;
>   for (; g() <= 7; b++)
>     if (i) {
>       for (; e <= 7; e++) {
>         c = 1;
>         for (; c <= 7; c++) {
>           d = h(b + 48);
>           f[-d + 4] ^= 3;
>         }
>       }
>       return;
>     }
> }
> main() {
>   j(1);
>   printf("%d\n", f[2]);
> }

When I apply the same "fix" to h() (add a return 0 or __builtin_unreachable ())
the code works again.

Note I think the missing return stmt isn't reached at runtime.

Disabling either unswitching or loop splitting makes the issue go away,
enabling both ontop of -O2 doesn't trigger it.

We early inline h into j where h looks like

int h (int i)
{
  int _3;

  <bb 2> :
  if (i_1(D) > 47)
    goto <bb 3>; [INV]
  else
    goto <bb 4>; [INV]

  <bb 3> :
  _3 = i_1(D) + -48;
  // predicted unlikely by early return (on trees) predictor.
  return _3;

  <bb 4> :
  return;

}

which results in

  b.2_1 = b;
  _2 = b.2_1 + 48;
  _3 = h (_2);
  d = _3;

becoming

  b.2_1 = b;
  _2 = b.2_1 + 48;
  if (_2 > 47)
    goto <bb 6>; [34.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 7>; [66.00%]

  <bb 6> :
  _30 = _2 + -48;
  _43 = _30;

  <bb 7> :
  # _39 = PHI <_43(6), _37(5)>
  _3 = _39;
  d = _3;

note that the return; case results in _37 to be used which is completely
random.

That said, our handling of an unreachable missing return in the IL is
likely counter productive.

Cleaned up testcase:

int a, b, c, d, e;
int f[8];
int g() {
  while (a)
    a >>= 4;
  return 0;
}
int h(int i) {
  if (i >= '0')
    return i - '0';
  //__builtin_unreachable ();
}
void j(int i) {
  b = 2;
  for (; g() <= 7; b++)
    if (i) {
      for (; e <= 7; e++) {
        c = 1;
        for (; c <= 7; c++) {
          d = h(b + 48);
          f[-d + 4] ^= 3;
        }
      }
      return;
    }
}
int main() {
  j(1);
  if (f[2] != 0)
    __builtin_abort ();
}