From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-403393-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18436 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2012 11:59:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 18379 invoked by uid 48); 11 Oct 2012 11:59:15 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54900] write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model (2)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:59:00 -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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-54900-4-t9xbP1uvtR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54900-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54900-4@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: 2012-10/txt/msg01069.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 11:59:14 UTC ---
This is ifcvt.c in action.
This is the if (!set_b && MEM_P (orig_x)) case where we already do some checks:
if (noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p (orig_x)) return FALSE; and
if (!noce_can_store_speculate_p (test_bb, orig_x)) return FALSE;
I'd say noce_can_store_speculate_p is buggy, it uses
          if (memory_modified_in_insn_p (mem, insn))
            return true;
but memory_modified_in_insn_p is pessimistic, it doesn't tell whether mem is
surely set, but whether it might be set.  I guess it would need to use
note_stores that would just do rtx_equal_p on the addresses or similarly prove
it is surely (and unconditionally) written.  So even note_stores might not be
the right thing, perhaps just looking at single_set SET_DEST.  And avoiding
inline asm, that doesn't have to store unconditionally.