* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-05-27 8:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-27 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-27 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2013-05-27
Component|rtl-optimization |tree-optimization
Known to work| |4.6.4
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
Summary|hang on volatile int array |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
| |hang on volatile int array
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yeah, similar. Mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-05-27 8:25 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-27 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-27 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-27 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The existing support for comparing addresses in operand_equal_p cannot handle
this as the volatile array is local.
It seems to me that there is no good reason to ever treat addresses of
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS trees as different if there is not TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
on offset determining pieces (though that would rely on gimplification
for COMPONENT_REFs?).
I wonder if this is the right time to introduce gimple_op_equal_p (),
wrapping operand_equal_p but handling a few cases less conservative...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-05-27 8:25 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-27 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-27 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-27 10:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-27 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 30202
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30202&action=edit
prototype patch
Like the attached.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-27 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-27 10:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-27 10:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-27 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> It seems to me that there is no good reason to ever treat addresses of
> TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS trees as different if there is not TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
> on offset determining pieces (though that would rely on gimplification
> for COMPONENT_REFs?).
Yes, I agree that the handling of addresses looks overly conservative.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-27 10:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-27 10:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2013-05-27 21:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8 " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2013-05-27 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 27 May 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > It seems to me that there is no good reason to ever treat addresses of
> > TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS trees as different if there is not TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
> > on offset determining pieces (though that would rely on gimplification
> > for COMPONENT_REFs?).
>
> Yes, I agree that the handling of addresses looks overly conservative.
I suppose TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS matter on the offset expression of
a get_inner_reference call on op0 of the ADDR_EXPR. For Ada that
would involve looking at SUBSTITUTE_PLACEHOLDER_IN_EXPR (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET
(field), exp) for example - or do we somehow guarantee that the
offset expressions that do not appear in indexes like operand 1 of
ARRAY_REFs do not contain side-effects?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-27 10:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2013-05-27 21:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-29 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-27 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I suppose TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS matter on the offset expression of
> a get_inner_reference call on op0 of the ADDR_EXPR. For Ada that
> would involve looking at SUBSTITUTE_PLACEHOLDER_IN_EXPR (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET
> (field), exp) for example - or do we somehow guarantee that the
> offset expressions that do not appear in indexes like operand 1 of
> ARRAY_REFs do not contain side-effects?
No, we cannot guarantee that. But AFAICS operand_equal_p rejects two
ADDR_EXPRs of the same expression when !OEP_ONLY_CONST only because it has
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS and I don't see why, IOW my understanding is that it should
be possible to add a OEP_ADDRESS_OF flag when !OEP_ONLY_CONST and use it to be
less conservative.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-27 21:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7/4.8 " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-29 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-29 13:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-06 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-29 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 29 13:14:59 2013
New Revision: 202074
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-07-22 Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de>
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57381.c: Add dg-require-effective-target int32plus.
2013-05-27 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR middle-end/57381
PR tree-optimization/57417
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_fold_indirect): Fix test
for unchanged base.
(set_ssa_val_to): Compare addresses using
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset.
PR tree-optimization/57417
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57417.c: New testcase.
2013-05-23 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR middle-end/57381
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57381.c: New testcase.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr57381.c
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr57417.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-29 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-29 13:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-06 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-29 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] hang |[4.7 Regression] hang on
|on volatile int array |volatile int array
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 4.8.2+.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7 Regression] hang on volatile int array
[not found] <bug-57417-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-29 13:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57417] [4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-05-06 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-06 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 6 14:22:41 2014
New Revision: 210110
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210110&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-06 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Backport from mainline
2013-05-27 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/57417
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (set_ssa_val_to): Compare addresses using
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57417.c: New testcase.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr57417.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread