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/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:30:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-62173-4-l6dCmtObf2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-62173-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173 --- Comment #17 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I really wonder why IVOPTs calls convert_affine_scev with !use_overflow_semantics. Note that for the original testcase 'i' may be negative or zero and thus 'd' may be zero. We do a bad analysis here because IVOPTs follows complete peeling immediately... but at least we have range information that looks useful: <bb 16>: # RANGE [0, 10] NONZERO 15 # d_26 = PHI <i_6(D)(15), d_13(17)> # RANGE [0, 9] NONZERO 15 d_13 = d_26 + -1; _14 = A[d_26]; # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255 _15 = (int) _14; # USE = nonlocal # CLB = nonlocal foo (_15); if (d_13 != 0) goto <bb 17>; else goto <bb 3>; <bb 17>: goto <bb 16>; but unfortunately we expand the initial value of the IV for d all the way to i_6(D) so we don't see that i_6(D) is constrained by the range for d_26. So when we are in idx_find_step before we replace *idx with iv->base we could check range-information on whether it wrapped. Hmm, I think we can't really compute this. But we can transfer range information (temporarily) from d_26 to iv->base i_6(D) and make use of that in scev_probably_wraps_p. There we currently compute whether (unsigned) i_6(D) + 2147483648 (??) > 9 using fold_binary but with range information [0, 10] it would compute as false (huh, so what is it actually testing?!). I think the computation of 'delta' should instead be adjusted to use range information - max for negative step and min for positive step. Like the following: Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c =================================================================== --- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision 220038) +++ gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (working copy) @@ -3863,12 +3863,17 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s bound of the type, and verify that the loop is exited before this occurs. */ unsigned_type = unsigned_type_for (type); - base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base); - if (tree_int_cst_sign_bit (step)) { tree extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type, lower_bound_in_type (type, type)); + wide_int min, max; + if (TREE_CODE (base) == SSA_NAME + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (base)) + && get_range_info (base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE) + base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, max); + else + base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base); delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, base, extreme); step_abs = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, unsigned_type, fold_convert (unsigned_type, step)); @@ -3877,6 +3882,13 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s { tree extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type, upper_bound_in_type (type, type)); + wide_int min, max; + if (TREE_CODE (base) == SSA_NAME + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (base)) + && get_range_info (base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE) + base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, min); + else + base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base); delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, extreme, base); step_abs = fold_convert (unsigned_type, step); } doesn't really help this case unless i_6(D) gets range-information transfered temporarily as I said above, of course.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-26 10:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-08-18 16:12 [Bug target/62173] New: [AArch64] Performance regression due to r213488 spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-18 16:39 ` [Bug target/62173] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-18 19:13 ` spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-19 1:37 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-10-28 11:28 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-14 9:37 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-17 2:14 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2014-11-24 12:15 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 12:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 13:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 23:01 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-26 10:54 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] [AArch64] Can't ivopt array base address while ARM can jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-27 9:35 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-27 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can rguenther at suse dot de 2014-11-27 12:16 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2014-11-27 13:34 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-23 17:33 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 10:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2015-01-26 11:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 13:48 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 14:19 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 14:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-26 14:53 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-26 15:03 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 15:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 3:21 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 7:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 9:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-28 18:26 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net 2015-01-29 6:48 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 6:42 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 12:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-05 7:27 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5 Regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:46 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-13 8:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-02 3:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-03 3:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-07-22 11:44 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
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-62173-4-l6dCmtObf2@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: linkBe 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).