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 BBA903858D39; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:16:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BBA903858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708607772;
	bh=rkRgQK1/dZWlDTcNKkYP01fogle50On4FlXzC+oy4i4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jUO+Pys5y3tJaY0Zxo5R64BDNBnbpSlujKkbbAftMphD5Iy/YIKJmoHP88J0G1BxU
	 UYzdVtcbZIydHlnOFaSe4Dt22b3t3fnvaeCaJ+P6AbCDhwIRF5E3CMMXrE/Jf9sdqV
	 OQ+F6mDFTIuIvfA8e4vwpEWV2g1EjKxXAaLCyKRg=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111770] predicated loads inactive lane values
 not modelled
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:16:12 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-111770-4-3u8okSGrRM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111770-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111770-4@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=3D111770

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Now, if-conversion could indeed elide the .COND_ADD for integers.  It's
> > problematic there only because of signed overflow undefinedness, so
> > you shouldn't see it for 'unsigned' already, and adding zero is safe.
>=20
> Can you elaborate on this a bit? Do you mean to say that the .COND_ADD is
> only there to avoid if-conversion introducing UB due to signed overflow?

No, you are right.

> ISTM it's needed for correctness even without that, as the addend needn't=
 be
> guaranteed to be zero in the general case.
>=20
> > if-conversion would need to have an idea of all the ranges involved here
> > so it might be a bit sophisticated to get it right.
>=20
> Does what I suggested above make any sense, or do you have in mind a
> different way of handling this in if-conversion? I'm wondering how ifcvt
> should determine that the addend is zero in the case where the predicate =
is
> false.

ifcvt would need to compute said fact, say, keep a lattice of the value
(or value-range) that's there when the block isn't executed (simulating
a disabled vector lane).  A load that's going to be replaced by a
.MASK_LOAD can be then known zero and this needs to be propagated through
regular stmts (like the multiply).  There's also .COND_* which if-conversion
could actually provide the else value for - like if we have a following
division to avoid dividing by zero.  But that would be propagating backwards
(I'd still have this usecase in mind).=