From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 514583898391; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 15:31:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 514583898391
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670427114;
	bh=Jiz3ZT7H4wUFn72NHISRhFf+xdK/+nhzvYyPrI88HZ4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=svf6DHxRX1uO9gp206Mipzz4ATJJAr5cDS/oBwX0QL/cqlCyx2UHs68LB4CU5jmfy
	 KKex1PESF+22MZAUj6NWx+aSD3RCvP+TUEa7vICZbU6K0XABORCibKFAjEJbm7UzQs
	 ER0w3tAgyJlIgl9IPVH4qH6oeKRQWHFAt0MzNZ8Q=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107972] backward propagation of finite
 property not performed
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 15:31:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107972-4-nHcmhuf7AG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107972-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107972-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107972

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
Its because we don't go back and re-propagate into previous basic block.  T=
ake
an integral vexample:

unsigned=20
foo (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
  unsigned res =3D a + b;
  if (res > 100)
    return 42
  if (a > 30 || b > 30)
    __builtin_unreachable ();
  if (res > 100)
    return 42
  return res;

The branch which restricts the range of a and b to [0,30] causes GORI to
recompute "res =3D a + b" on each edge, so those values are pushed along any
outgoing edges, and when we see res > 100 the second time we fold that away.

Thats all handled buy GORI which is basic-block oriented only.  At no point
(yet anyway) do we attempt to push these values back further in the CFG, so
therefore we don't touch the conditions that were encountered earlier, and
cannot eliminate the earlier compare and return.=20=20

I have contemplated a new kind of VRP analysis pass which leverages what we=
 did
with 'assume', propagates known values backwards and looks for opportunities
earlier in the CFG that are exposed by information determined later in the =
IL.=20
 This sort of thing would probably require such a pass.=