* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-08 23:42 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08 23:48 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-08 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-08 23:24:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 27350
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27350
preprocessed file with just the (previously) miscompiled function
This is basically gcc.dg/torture/pr53272-1.c, here for completeness.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08 23:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53273] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-08 23:48 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-09 0:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-08 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-08 23:41:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27351
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27351
Like i2.i (attachment 27350) but with main and auxiliary functions, and always
aborting
This attachment was an edit-in-progress adding functions to make the test-case
runnable, but with an error that isn't in gcc.dg/torture/pr53272-2.c: the
foobar function always aborts, making the test-case always abort. This leads
to different code being generated for the key function rtc_update_irq_enable.
The difference seems to be the same as for calling an explicit or computed
noreturn function, which would be an ok optimization if cross-function
optimization was wanted. Changing the empty line in foobar to "if (foo(x))" as
in gcc.dg/torture/pr53272-2.c yields the expected same generated code as for
i2.i.
So, while it exposes an unwanted optimization, for this case it is benevolent;
the goal was add framework to make the case runnable, not aborting. :)
Though, I bet I can cook up a C++ case that throws (or C that rethrows) before
the aborting call, and the code have the same unwanted difference in presence
of the aborting foobar.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08 23:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53273] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08 23:48 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-09 0:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-09 0:02 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-09 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-08 23:48:06 UTC ---
You seem to be hitting the logic detecting functions executed just once and
making them optimized for size rather than speed. Usual way to avoid it in the
testsuite is to put a loop into main().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-09 0:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-09 0:02 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-09 0:14 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-09 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #27351|application/octet-stream |text/plain
mime type| |
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-09 00:01:56 UTC ---
Comment on attachment 27351
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27351
Like i2.i (attachment 27350) but with main and auxiliary functions, and always
aborting
Correcting type of attachment to text/plain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-09 0:02 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-09 0:14 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-09 3:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-09 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-09 00:04:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> You seem to be hitting the logic detecting functions executed just once and
> making them optimized for size rather than speed.
No, not really "once", but "noreturn". Maybe both. :/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-09 0:14 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-09 3:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-16 20:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-09 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-09 00:13:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Usual way to avoid it in the
> testsuite is to put a loop into main().
Besides, the background of this PR (at the URL) is that I don't want a recipe
that works for this-optimization and this-code; I want a way to disable
cross-function-optimizations once and for all, preferably with defined
function-granular borders, like disabling in and out of specific functions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-09 3:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-16 20:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-16 23:59 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-17 4:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-16 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The noipa attribute is used for this now.
In this case, adding noipa to foobar, removes the noreturn detection of foobar
and there is no code difference with/without foobar defined in there.
__attribute__ ((noipa))
extern void foobar(void *);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-16 20:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-16 23:59 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-17 4:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-16 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
There it is! I *knew* I had a PR entered for this, and was a bit surprised
when the ipa attribute was introduced, that this PR wasn't cross-referenced.
Then again I guess most people don't check in bugzilla for possible entries
when they fix something, and this one maybe hasn't got any good terms to look
for.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> The noipa attribute is used for this now.
It sure is and spot on.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/53273] test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits
2012-05-08 3:07 [Bug tree-optimization/53273] New: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations with no way to mark limits hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-16 23:59 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-17 4:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-17 4:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #8)
> There it is! I *knew* I had a PR entered for this, and was a bit surprised
> when the ipa attribute was introduced, that this PR wasn't cross-referenced.
>
> Then again I guess most people don't check in bugzilla for possible entries
> when they fix something, and this one maybe hasn't got any good terms to
> look for.
I think part of it is also finding it independently and fixing it without
looking to see if someone has filed a bug report. I have found a few like this
over the last few years as I try to clean up bugzilla for quality reports.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread