public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/108406] New: Missed integer optimization on x86-64 unless -fwrapv is used
@ 2023-01-14 10:26 jzwinck at gmail dot com
2023-01-16 7:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/108406] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: jzwinck at gmail dot com @ 2023-01-14 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108406
Bug ID: 108406
Summary: Missed integer optimization on x86-64 unless -fwrapv
is used
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jzwinck at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this C++ code:
#include <cstdint>
// returns a if less than b or if b is INT32_MIN
int32_t special_min(int32_t a, int32_t b)
{
return a < b || b == INT32_MIN ? a : b;
}
GCC with -fwrapv correctly realizes that subtracting 1 from b can eliminate the
special case, and it generates this code for x86-64:
lea edx, [rsi-1]
mov eax, edi
cmp edi, edx
cmovg eax, esi
ret
But without -fwrapv it generates worse code:
mov eax, esi
cmp edi, esi
jl .L4
cmp esi, -2147483648
je .L4
ret
.L4:
mov eax, edi
ret
If I wrote "hand optimized" C++ code trying to implement that optimization, I
understand -fwrapv would be required, otherwise the compiler could decide the
signed overflow is UB. But here the compiler is in control, it knows the
behavior of integer overflow on x86-64, and so it should not matter whether
-fwrapv is used.
Demo: https://godbolt.org/z/o881Mdqoa
Stack Overflow discussion:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75110108/gcc-wont-use-its-own-optimization-trick-without-fwrapv
This is somewhat related to #102032 in the sense that it's an optimization
missed without -fwrapv, but the type of optimization is different. It is
possible there's a single solution that would solve both problems (and others).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/108406] Missed integer optimization on x86-64 unless -fwrapv is used
2023-01-14 10:26 [Bug tree-optimization/108406] New: Missed integer optimization on x86-64 unless -fwrapv is used jzwinck at gmail dot com
@ 2023-01-16 7:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-01-16 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108406
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed| |2023-01-16
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. With -fwrapv
/* y == XXX_MIN || x < y --> x <= y - 1 */
(simplify
(bit_ior:c (eq:s @1 min_value) (lt:cs @0 @1))
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1))
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (TREE_TYPE (@1)))
(le @0 (minus @1 { build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (@1), 1); }))))
triggers. We could with !TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS write the
subtraction in an unsigned type to make it well-defined.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-16 7:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-14 10:26 [Bug tree-optimization/108406] New: Missed integer optimization on x86-64 unless -fwrapv is used jzwinck at gmail dot com
2023-01-16 7:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/108406] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
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).