public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/46554] New: Less inlining leads to CSiBE regression
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-46554-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46554

           Summary: Less inlining leads to CSiBE regression
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hubicka@gcc.gnu.org


Created attachment 22451
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22451
testcase flex-2.5.31/regex.c

The loss here is not inlining regmatch_len. The catch is that the test if (m ==
((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0) is tested before all uses of regmatch_len and thus
optimized out.  So it simplifies into m->rm_so < 0 test and arithmetic that
ends up being cheaper than call.

int regmatch_len (regmatch_t * m)
{
 if (m == ((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0) {
  return 0;
 }

 return m->rm_eo - m->rm_so;
}

It is used as:

 if (m == ((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0)
  return 0;

 if (regmatch_len (m) < 20)
  s = regmatch_cpy (m, buf, src);
 else
  s = regmatch_dup (m, src);

Tricky.  Inliner sees it as:

Analyzing function body size: regmatch_len
  freq:  1000 size:  2 time:  2 if (m_2(D) == 0B)
  freq:   898 size:  1 time:  1 D.7268_3 = m_2(D)->rm_so;
    50% will be eliminated by inlining
  freq:   898 size:  2 time:  2 if (D.7268_3 < 0)
  freq:   726 size:  1 time:  1 D.7270_4 = m_2(D)->rm_eo;
    50% will be eliminated by inlining
  freq:   726 size:  1 time:  1 D.7268_5 = m_2(D)->rm_so;
    50% will be eliminated by inlining
  freq:   726 size:  1 time:  1 D.7269_6 = D.7270_4 - D.7268_5;
  freq:  1000 size:  1 time:  2 return D.7269_1;
    will eliminated by inlining
Overall function body time: 9-3 size: 11-5
With function call overhead time: 9-15 size: 11-8

I can imagine we can try to get summary based on value ranges, instead of known
constants, do early VRP and work out first test well.

Even optimizing the first conditoinal away won't make it inlined, it will be
still considered to have size 9, so code will be expected to grow by 1 byte.
Optimizing second conditoinal is even trickier.

The code can be optimized away by IP-value range propagation that would
be interesting optimization to have...


             reply	other threads:[~2010-11-19  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-19  8:27 hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2010-11-19 10:55 ` [Bug middle-end/46554] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-19 10:58   ` Jan Hubicka
2010-11-19 11:14 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2021-11-29  2:16 ` [Bug ipa/46554] " pinskia 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-46554-4@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).