From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 0DB293858D37; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:56:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0DB293858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1595228188;
 bh=/Qw5nThQWNQNB2n3kTAw3L7u5ZDsJjacB6uinXZl2qU=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=TvV0bZnaxHc18LjfZgoAdpUIfLzM49/yxnSnqRIpGH1d+peL6YYX1c1lR3MMU45TV
 RPa5vtdpcshNT+ek57PUzT4bQYX5dvP7vXeSqAgQ4tBDbGSFMKVmRh/cX9DvzXsR5o
 ZvA2iDLCTi2NgYAChRGCmPF4JZqtuOkA2RarYgFk=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/96244] Redudant mask load generated
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:56:27 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status keywords
Message-ID: <bug-96244-4-1xQhBALenh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:56:28 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96244

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-07-20
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So one thing to note here is that a masked load of a by-value parameter decl
doesn't make much sense since a load from it cannot trap (unless there's
out-of-bound accesses - which I'm not sure we may simply disregard here).

if-conversion sees

VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<int[8]>(d)[i_16]

and indeed considers it

iftmp.0_11 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<int[8]>(c)[i_17];
tree could trap...

  <bb 3> [local count: 954449105]:
  # RANGE [0, 8] NONZERO 15
  # i_17 =3D PHI <0(2), i_13(8)>
  # ivtmp_6 =3D PHI <8(2), ivtmp_4(8)>
  _1 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<int[8]>(a)[i_17];
  _2 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<int[8]>(b)[i_17];

so range-info is one index too pessimistic here.  So IMHO it's not about
"redundant" masked loads, it's about the fact that we end up with loads
at all here.  If c and d would not be register arguments we would have to
perform loads and if they might trap we could not elide the masked load.=