public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "peteraward+gcc at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51506] New: Function cloning misses constant struct
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:58:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-51506-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51506

             Bug #: 51506
           Summary: Function cloning misses constant struct
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: peteraward+gcc@gmail.com


The actual problem I’m dealing with is with avr-gcc, so the goal is to achieve
a small code size. I’m trying to write my code like this:
lcd_init(lcd_t l, ...)
where the first parameter is passed a *constant* struct which contains the
memory addresses of each of the pins for the LCD. Thus, I want the compiler to
note that all calls have the same first argument, clone the function, and
propagate the constant.

However, it doesn’t seem to be working in practice.
In trying to build this test case, I found the compiler would just inline all
the functions, which defeats the point (in the actual code, the cost of
inlining is too high). So, I’ve added the noinline attribute, which I don’t
think should stop this optimisation, but apologies if it does.

Anyhow, here’s the testcase.
(using gcc version 4.6.2 (Debian 4.6.2-5), on 64-bit Linux)

$ cat test.c
typedef struct {
    int a;
    int b;
} dint;

__attribute__((noinline))
static int compute_int(int x, int var) {
    int y = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
        y += i * x;
    return y + var;
}

__attribute__((noinline))
static int compute_dint(dint x, int var) {
    int z = x.a + x.b;
    int y = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < z; i++)
        y += i * z;
    return y + var;
}

int main() {
    int rv;
    rv += compute_dint((dint) {6, 1}, 1);
    rv += compute_dint((dint) {6, 1}, 2);
    rv += compute_dint((dint) {6, 1}, 3);
    rv += compute_int(5, 1);
    rv += compute_int(5, 2);
    rv += compute_int(5, 3);
    return rv;
}
$ gcc -fdump-ipa-all -fipa-cp -fipa-cp-clone -Os -std=c99 test.c

Expected result:
both compute_int and compute_dint should be optimised to versions where "x" is
constant.

Actual reslut:
only compute_int is optimised.


             reply	other threads:[~2011-12-11 23:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-11 23:58 peteraward+gcc at gmail dot com [this message]
2011-12-12 10:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51506] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-13  2:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-19  3:06 ` [Bug ipa/51506] Function cloning misses constant struct at -Os vs -O2 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-51506-4@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).