public inbox for gcc-cvs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tamar Christina <tnfchris@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [gcc r14-4746] middle-end: don't create LC-SSA PHI variables for PHI nodes who dominate loop Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:48:51 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <20231019124852.022AE3858D33@sourceware.org> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/g:217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4 commit r14-4746-g217a0fcb852aeb4aa9e3fb9baec6ff947c8de3d4 Author: Tamar Christina <tamar.christina@arm.com> Date: Thu Oct 19 13:44:01 2023 +0100 middle-end: don't create LC-SSA PHI variables for PHI nodes who dominate loop As the testcase shows, when a PHI node dominates the loop there is no new definition inside the loop. As such there would be no PHI nodes to update. When we maintain LCSSA form we create an intermediate node in between the two loops to thread alongt the value. However later on when we update the second loop we don't have any PHI nodes to update and so adjust_phi_and_debug_stmts does nothing. This leaves us with an incorrect phi node. Normally this does nothing and just gets ignored. But in the case of the vUSE chain we end up corrupting the chain. As such whenever a PHI node's argument dominates the loop, we should remove the newly created PHI node after edge redirection. The one exception to this is when the loop has been versioned. In such cases the versioned loop may not use the value but the second loop can. When this happens and we add the loop guard unless the join block has the PHI it can't find the original value for use inside the guard block. The next refactoring in the series moves the formation of the guard block inside peeling itself. Here we have all the information and wouldn't need to re-create it later. gcc/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/111860 * tree-vect-loop-manip.cc (slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg): Remove PHI nodes that dominate loop. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/111860 * gcc.dg/vect/pr111860.c: New test. Diff: --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc | 15 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..36f077460104 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860.c @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ + +int optimize_path_n, optimize_path_d; +int *optimize_path_d_0; +extern void path_threeOpt( long); +void optimize_path() { + int i; + long length; + i = 0; + for (; i <= optimize_path_n; i++) + optimize_path_d = 0; + i = 0; + for (; i < optimize_path_n; i++) + length += optimize_path_d_0[i]; + path_threeOpt(length); +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc index 1f7779b9834c..db1d4f867ead 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc @@ -1633,6 +1633,21 @@ slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg (class loop *loop, edge loop_exit, { tree new_arg = gimple_phi_arg (phi, 0)->def; new_phi_args.put (new_arg, gimple_phi_result (phi)); + + if (TREE_CODE (new_arg) != SSA_NAME) + continue; + /* If the PHI node dominates the loop then we shouldn't create + a new LC-SSSA PHI for it in the intermediate block. Unless the + the loop has been versioned. If it has then we need the PHI + node such that later when the loop guard is added the original + dominating PHI can be found. */ + basic_block def_bb = gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (new_arg)); + if (loop == scalar_loop + && (!def_bb || !flow_bb_inside_loop_p (loop, def_bb))) + { + auto gsi = gsi_for_stmt (phi); + remove_phi_node (&gsi, true); + } } /* Copy the current loop LC PHI nodes between the original loop exit
reply other threads:[~2023-10-19 12:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20231019124852.022AE3858D33@sourceware.org \ --to=tnfchris@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-cvs@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).