public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/61757] [4.10 Regression] genmodes failure with enable-checking
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-61757-4-orrHcLt0kN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-61757-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
DOM first rotates the loop by threading the entry over the first part of
the conditional, producing

 if (i + 1 < n && q == a[i + 1].p)
   {
     ++i;
     do
       {
         if (q != a[i].p)
           break;
         ++i;
         if (i >= n)
           break;
       }
     while (1);

the 2nd DOM pass then tries to complete the rotate but manages to record
two threadings that are incompatible:

  Threaded jump 6 --> 12 to 13
Jump threading proved probability of edge 12->4 too small (it is 5114, should
be 10000).
  Threaded jump 7 --> 12 to 14

the 2nd one over the loop entry would be ok, completing the rotate.  But
the first one is odd - and I can't see why we register it:

Optimizing block #6

1>>> COND 1 = n_4(D) ge_expr i_12
1>>> COND 1 = n_4(D) ne_expr i_12
1>>> COND 1 = n_4(D) gt_expr i_12
1>>> COND 0 = n_4(D) le_expr i_12
Optimizing statement pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p;
LKUP STMT pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p
          pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p;
2>>> STMT pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p
          pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p;
  Registering jump thread: (6, 12) incoming edge;  (12, 4) normal;
<<<< STMT pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p
          pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p;
<<<< COND 0 = n_4(D) le_expr i_12
<<<< COND 1 = n_4(D) gt_expr i_12
<<<< COND 1 = n_4(D) ne_expr i_12
<<<< COND 1 = n_4(D) ge_expr i_12

bb6 is just

<bb 6>:
pretmp_11 = a[i_12].p;

and its single predecessor

<bb 4>:
i_12 = i_9 + 1;
if (n_4(D) > i_12)
  goto <bb 6>;
else
  goto <bb 5>;

with the record_equality change we now record q_8(D) == prephitmp_16
instead of the other way around:

Optimizing block #4

0>>> COPY q_8(D) = prephitmp_16
1>>> COND 1 = q_8(D) le_expr prephitmp_16
1>>> COND 1 = q_8(D) ge_expr prephitmp_16
1>>> COND 1 = q_8(D) eq_expr prephitmp_16
1>>> COND 0 = q_8(D) ne_expr prephitmp_16

but when threading over the backedge this doesn't get invalidated.

So this canonicalization happens to be a correctness issue (by accident?
Jeff?)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-07-14  9:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-09  7:51 [Bug bootstrap/61757] New: " dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2014-07-09  8:56 ` [Bug bootstrap/61757] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-07-09 10:14 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-09 11:56 ` [Bug bootstrap/61757] [4.10 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-09 12:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61757] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-07-09 13:09 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-07-09 20:47 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-07-10  9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-10  9:39 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-10 10:29 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-07-10 14:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-10 14:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 13:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 13:45 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-07-11 14:07 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 14:26 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-07-11 16:16 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 17:24 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 17:47 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-11 18:32 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-07-11 23:03 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-13 13:39 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-07-13 17:32 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14  1:23 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14  8:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14  9:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14  9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14  9:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-07-14 10:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14 10:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14 17:57 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-14 19:15 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-07-15  7:45 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-01-16  5:37 ` law at redhat dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-61757-4-orrHcLt0kN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).