From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70D703858C62 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:05:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 70D703858C62 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667912741; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Uwx1ciVl3ddHrxOBP2efKvcc3J1SinaJrqRAyzs8kyE=; b=WWaCSBe08d0y+ZOSCGSMpPk8oKqviaMXRgzY3JTLPbVucpNJCRO1os63TJBT50208ADJW6 bD2JDH2Fw/VTbwFZH9SNEiZVLcv7+aPa1xCUXnutlm41Qte/zNj3+PraOsjfse6YNjtaMB NaQ17nCcVSMSAN2BukSH8ZFCFEtek1k= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-260-cp0Ou4qHOsW9wyyvdZH_eQ-1; Tue, 08 Nov 2022 08:05:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: cp0Ou4qHOsW9wyyvdZH_eQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BFA9185A7A8; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.183]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D1A24A9256; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2A8D5Zms2242804 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Nov 2022 14:05:36 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2A8D5ZfR2242803; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 14:05:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 14:05:34 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] tree-optimization/107389 - honor __builtin_assume_alignment at -O0 Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20221108125348.BFC2213398@imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20221108125348.BFC2213398@imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:53:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > The following makes sure to set alignment information on the LHS > of __builtin_assume_alignment calls even when not optimizing so > uses as arguments to builtin functions like memcpy or __atomic_load_n > can be reflected at RTL expansion time. > > Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? > > Thanks, > Richard. > > PR tree-optimization/107389 > * gimple-low.cc (lower_builtin_assume_aligned): New. > (lower_stmt): Call it. > > * gcc.dg/pr107389.c: New testcase. > --- > gcc/gimple-low.cc | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr107389.c | 13 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr107389.c > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-low.cc b/gcc/gimple-low.cc > index 512aa9feada..f9bcb772163 100644 > --- a/gcc/gimple-low.cc > +++ b/gcc/gimple-low.cc > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static void lower_try_catch (gimple_stmt_iterator *, struct lower_data *); > static void lower_gimple_return (gimple_stmt_iterator *, struct lower_data *); > static void lower_builtin_setjmp (gimple_stmt_iterator *); > static void lower_builtin_posix_memalign (gimple_stmt_iterator *); > +static void lower_builtin_assume_aligned (gimple_stmt_iterator *); > > > /* Lower the body of current_function_decl from High GIMPLE into Low > @@ -768,6 +769,13 @@ lower_stmt (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, struct lower_data *data) > lower_builtin_posix_memalign (gsi); > return; > } > + else if (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (decl) == BUILT_IN_ASSUME_ALIGNED > + && !optimize) > + { > + lower_builtin_assume_aligned (gsi); > + data->cannot_fallthru = false; > + return; > + } > } > > if (decl && (flags_from_decl_or_type (decl) & ECF_NORETURN)) > @@ -1310,6 +1318,39 @@ lower_builtin_posix_memalign (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi) > gsi_insert_after (gsi, stmt, GSI_NEW_STMT); > gsi_insert_after (gsi, gimple_build_label (noalign_label), GSI_NEW_STMT); > } > + > +/* Lower calls to __builtin_assume_aligned when not optimizing. */ > + > +static void > +lower_builtin_assume_aligned (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi) > +{ > + gcall *call = as_a (gsi_stmt (*gsi)); > + > + tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (call); > + if (!lhs || !POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (lhs))) > + return; I think nothing checks that TREE_CODE (lhs) == SSA_NAME, that isn't guaranteed before ssa pass. Otherwise LGTM. Jakub