From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>,
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] middle-end IFN_ASSUME support [PR106654]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:53:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0fgJGouW3orcawy@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2210130810040.18337@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:11:53AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10/12/22 10:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:31:00AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > >> I presume you are looking to get this working for this release, making the
> > >> priority high? :-)
> > > Yes. So that we can claim we actually support C++23 Portable Assumptions
> > > and OpenMP assume directive's hold clauses for something non-trivial so
> > > people won't be afraid to actually use it.
> > > Of course, first the posted patch needs to be reviewed and only once it gets
> > > in, the ranger/GORI part can follow. As the latter is only an optimization,
> > > it can be done incrementally.
> >
> > I will start poking at something to find ranges for parameters from the return
> > backwards.
>
> If the return were
>
> if (return_val)
> return return_val;
>
> you could use path-ranger with the parameter SSA default defs as
> "interesting". So you "only" need to somehow interpret the return
> statement as such and do path rangers compute_ranges ()
If it was easier for handling, another possible representation of the
assume_function could be not that it returns a bool where [1,1] returned
means defined behavior, otherwise UB, but that the function returns void
and the assumption is that it returns, the other paths would be
__builtin_unreachable (). But still in both cases it needs a specialized
backwards walk from the assumption that either it returns [1,1] or that it
returns through GIMPLE_RETURN to be defined behavior. In either case,
external exceptions, or infinite loops or other reasons why the function
might not return normally (exit/abort/longjmp/non-local goto etc.) are still
UB for assumptions.
Say normally, if we have:
extern void foo (int);
bool
assume1 (int x)
{
foo (x);
if (x != 42)
__builtin_unreachable ();
return true;
}
we can't through backwards ranger walk determine that x_1(D) at the start of
the function has [42,42] range, we can just say it is true at the end of the
function, because foo could do if (x != 42) exit (0); or if (x != 42) throw
1; or if (x != 42) longjmp (buf, 1); or while (x != 42) ; or if (x != 42)
abort ();
But with assumption functions we actually can and stick [42, 42] on the
parameters even when we know nothing about foo function.
Of course, perhaps initially, we can choose to ignore those extra
guarantees.
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-13 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-10 8:54 Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-10 21:09 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-10 21:19 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-11 13:36 ` [PATCH] middle-end, v2: " Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-12 15:48 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-13 6:50 ` [PATCH] middle-end, v3: " Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-14 11:27 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-14 18:33 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-17 6:55 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-17 15:44 ` [PATCH] middle-end, v4: " Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-18 7:00 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-18 21:31 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-19 16:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-19 16:55 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-19 17:39 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-19 17:41 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-19 18:25 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-19 17:14 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-11 18:05 ` [PATCH] middle-end " Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-12 10:15 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-12 14:31 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-12 14:39 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-12 16:12 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-13 8:11 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-13 9:53 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2022-10-13 13:16 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-13 9:57 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-17 17:53 ` Andrew MacLeod
2022-10-14 20:43 ` Martin Uecker
2022-10-14 21:20 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-15 8:07 ` Martin Uecker
2022-10-15 8:53 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-17 5:52 ` Martin Uecker
2022-11-08 9:19 Pilar Latiesa
2022-11-08 12:10 ` Jakub Jelinek
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=Y0fgJGouW3orcawy@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=aldyh@redhat.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jh@suse.cz \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/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).