From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22872 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2013 08:55:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22829 invoked by uid 48); 14 Oct 2013 08:55:16 -0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57742] memset(malloc(n),0,n) -> calloc(n,1) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:55:00 -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-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2013-10-14 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > Created attachment 30981 [details] > basic patch > > This is a very limited version of this optimization. It is in > simplify_builtin_call, so only triggers if malloc/calloc is > SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT(gimple_vuse(memset_stmt)). However, generalizing it means > we would need plenty of tests protecting against cases where the > transformation would be wrong. Note that this transforms: > p=malloc(n); > if(cond)memset(p,0,n); > into: > p=calloc(n,1); > cond; > which is good if cond is p!=0 but may not always be so great otherwise. ;) post-dominator tests (or simply tests whether both calls are in the same basic-block ...). Also you can transform p = malloc (n); if (p) memset (p, 0, n); which might be a common-enough case to optimize for. > I won't post this to gcc-patches, I think we want something more general > (dereferencing a double* between the 2 statements shouldn't break it) or > nothing. dereferencing a double wouldn't have a VDEF (unless you store a double).