public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tree-cfg: do not duplicate returns_twice calls
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:13:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc2He7G-L2WF0zoHeSEd1fHaHVoi3oV0CbRffSpV5Yug2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4fb717d-6eaa-f5c-da99-ef71ed89f73e@ispras.ru>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:10 PM Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
>
>
> Apologies for the prolonged silence Richard, it is a bit of an obscure topic,
> and I was unsure I'd be able to handle any complications in a timely manner.
> I'm ready to revisit it now, please see below.
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:21 PM Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > A returns_twice call may have associated abnormal edges that correspond
> > > to the "second return" from the call. If the call is duplicated, the
> > > copies of those edges also need to be abnormal, but e.g. tracer does not
> > > enforce that. Just prohibit the (unlikely to be useful) duplication.
> >
> > The general CFG copying routines properly duplicate those edges, no?
>
> No (in fact you say so in the next paragraph). In general I think they cannot,
> abnormal edges are a special case, so it should be the responsibility of the
> caller.
>
> > Tracer uses duplicate_block so it should also get copies of all successor
> > edges of that block.  It also only traces along normal edges.  What it might
> > miss is abnormal incoming edges - is that what you are referring to?
>
> Yes (I think its entire point is to build a "trace" of duplicated blocks that
> does not have incoming edges in the middle, abnormal or not).
>
> > That would be a thing we don't handle in duplicate_block on its own but
> > that callers are expected to do (though I don't see copy_bbs doing that
> > either).  I wonder if we can trigger this issue for some testcase?
>
> Oh yes (in fact my desire to find a testcase delayed this quite a bit).
> When compiling the following testcase with -O2 -ftracer:
>
> __attribute__((returns_twice))
> int rtwice_a(int), rtwice_b(int);
>
> int f(int *x)
> {
>         volatile unsigned k, i = (*x);
>
>         for (k = 1; (i = rtwice_a(i)) * k; k = 2);
>
>         for (; (i = rtwice_b(i)) * k; k = 4);
>
>         return k;
> }
>
> tracer manages to eliminate the ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER block completely, so
> the possibility of transferring control back to rtwice_a from rtwice_b
> is no longer modeled in the IR. I could spend some time "upgrading" this
> to an end-to-end miscompilation, but I hope you agree this is quite broken
> already.
>
> > The thing to check would be incoming abnormal edges in
> > can_duplicate_block_p, not (only) returns twice functions?
>
> Unfortunately not, abnormal edges are also used for computed gotos, which are
> less magic than returns_twice edges and should not block tracer I think.

I think computed gotos should use regular edges, only non-local goto should
use abnormals...

I suppose asm goto also uses abnormal edges?

Btw, I don't see how they in general are "less magic".  Sure, we have an
explicit receiver (the destination label), but we can only do edge inserts
if we have a single computed goto edge into a block (we can "move" the
label to the block created when splitting the edge).

> This implies patch 1/3 [1] unnecessary blocks sinking to computed goto targets.
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/588498.html
>
> How would you like to proceed here? Is my initial patch ok?

Hmm, so for returns twice calls duplicate_block correctly copies the call
and redirects the provided incoming edge to it.  The API does not
handle adding any further incoming edges - the caller would be responsible
for this.  So I still somewhat fail to see the point here.  If tracer does not
handle extra incoming edges properly then we need to fix tracer?  This
also includes non-local goto (we seem to copy non-local labels just
fine - wasn't there a bugreport about this!?).

So I think can_duplicate_block_p is the wrong place to fix (the RTL side
would need a similar fix anyhow?)

Richard.

> Alexander
>
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >         * tree-cfg.c (gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p): Reject blocks with
> > >         calls that may return twice.
> > > ---
> > >  gcc/tree-cfg.c | 7 +++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > index b7fe313b7..a99f1acb4 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > @@ -6304,12 +6304,15 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block bb)
> > >      {
> > >        gimple *g = gsi_stmt (gsi);
> > >
> > > -      /* An IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC/IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT call must be
> > > +      /* Prohibit duplication of returns_twice calls, otherwise associated
> > > +        abnormal edges also need to be duplicated properly.
> > > +        An IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC/IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT call must be
> > >          duplicated as part of its group, or not at all.
> > >          The IFN_GOMP_SIMT_VOTE_ANY and IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_* are part of such a
> > >          group, so the same holds there.  */
> > >        if (is_gimple_call (g)
> > > -         && (gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC)
> > > +         && (gimple_call_flags (g) & ECF_RETURNS_TWICE
> > > +             || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC)
> > >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT)
> > >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_VOTE_ANY)
> > >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_BFLY)
> > > --
> > > 2.33.1
> > >
> >

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-13  7:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-13 14:25 [RFC PATCH] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp Alexander Monakov
2021-12-13 14:45 ` Richard Biener
2021-12-13 15:20   ` Alexander Monakov
2021-12-14 11:10     ` Алексей Нурмухаметов
2022-01-03 13:41       ` Richard Biener
2022-01-03 16:35         ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-04  7:25           ` Richard Biener
2022-01-14 18:20             ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 1/3] " Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  7:47               ` Richard Biener
2023-11-08  9:04               ` Florian Weimer
2023-11-08 10:01                 ` Richard Biener
2023-11-08 13:06                   ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 2/3] tree-cfg: do not duplicate returns_twice calls Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  8:08               ` Richard Biener
2022-07-12 20:10                 ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-13  7:13                   ` Richard Biener [this message]
2022-07-13 14:57                     ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-14  6:38                       ` Richard Biener
2022-07-14 20:12                         ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-19  8:40                           ` Richard Biener
2022-07-19 20:00                             ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-13 16:01                     ` Jeff Law
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 3/3] tree-cfg: check placement of " Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  8:12               ` Richard Biener

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=CAFiYyc2He7G-L2WF0zoHeSEd1fHaHVoi3oV0CbRffSpV5Yug2A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=gcc-patches@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).