From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-388448-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7175 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 13:37:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 7103 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 13:37:36 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:37:18 +0000
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:37:00 -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-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52558-4-p6lCmoSB9f@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52558-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52558-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00730.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558

--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-11 13:37:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)

> Both value-numbering (FRE/PRE, that do not run after store motion :/) and
> DOM should figure this out.  DOM only in theory, but at least in this simple
> case it should figure it out.  Do you have a testcase that does not require
> your patches?

On a pristine trunk I don't have the exact problem (since the equality in
comment 14 was created by my WIP), but I do have a similar problem where no
optimization can figure out that g_2_lsm == g_2.

Here is a variation of the PR testcase:

int g_1 = 1;
int g_2 = 0;

int func_1(void)
{
  int l;
  for (l = 0; l < 1234; l++)
  { 
    if (g_1)
      return l;
    else
      g_2 = 0;
  }
  return 999;
}

On pristine trunk, we get:

  # VUSE <.MEM_9(D)>
  g_2_lsm.6_12 = g_2;           <-- g_2_lsm = g_2
  if (pretmp.4_1 != 0)
    goto <bb 4>;
  else
    goto <bb 3>;

<bb 3>:
  # .MEM_8 = VDEF <.MEM_9(D)>
  g_2 = 0;
  goto <bb 5>;

<bb 4>:
  # .MEM_16 = VDEF <.MEM_9(D)>
  g_2 = g_2_lsm.6_12;           <-- g_2_lsm == g_2!!

This may actually be the problem in this PR.  If we could figure out that
g_2_lsm == g_2, there would be no write to g_2 on the g_1!=0 arm of the
conditional.

Should DOM be able to figure out that g_2_lsm == g_2 in this case as well?

Thanks.