public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110251] [13/14 Regression] Hang at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 13:30:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110251-4-CUGSNYVDSh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110251-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110251

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
hmm. yeah. its triggering some kind of pathological edge evaluation between
GORI and cache updating.

There is a long sequence of dependent stmts, presumably the unrolled loop, and
a sequential series of conditions.. ie:
  _4 = (short unsigned int) c.2_1;
  _5 = _4 + 65535;
  a_lsm.19_30 = a;
  _49 = _4 + 65534;
  _12 = _5 & _49;
  _46 = _12 + 65535;
  _48 = _12 & _46;
  _59 = _48 + 65535;
  _60 = _48 & _59;
<...>
if (_12 != 0)
if (_48 != 0)
if (_60 != 0)
<...>
note the interdependence of say _48 and _12.  
Evaluating _48 evaluates _12 and _46.  _46 evaluates _12 as well, and then it
continues..  
Edge evaluation still has no caching, so its calculated as required.  This is
causing a cascading exponential growth of edge evaluations the further we go.

Caching outgoing edge evaluations should resolve this, as would identifying the
situation with 2 operands that have an interdependence and evaluating them
together rather than independently, thus removing the exponential explosion.

still considering...

.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-21 13:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-14 14:16 [Bug c/110251] New: " shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
2023-06-15  3:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110251] [14 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-15  4:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-15  4:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110251] [13/14 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-15  6:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-20 10:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-20 10:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-21 13:30 ` amacleod at redhat dot com [this message]
2023-06-26 14:04 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-06-26 14:05 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-07-27  9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-16 14:54 ` iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot com
2024-01-16 14:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-16 15:05 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2024-01-16 18:06 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2024-01-16 18:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-16 18:27 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2024-01-17  1:21 ` iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot com
2024-01-17 10:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-21  9:15 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110251] [13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

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-110251-4-CUGSNYVDSh@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: link
Be 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).