From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=7NS7=4K=kam.mff.cuni.cz=hubicka@sourceware.org>
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.16])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED494385F3D2
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 21:56:15 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ED494385F3D2
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=ucw.cz
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kam.mff.cuni.cz
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)
	id 1D7C428088F; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 22:56:15 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ucw.cz; s=gen1;
	t=1670882175;
	h=from:from: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=UGnYxes1ZMQCIhQdkaObgEqe22XJoxYSHhBUoosW5YQ=;
	b=mZFeb1jSSbORzi8P6s7QZuxLJHX8Eqb38zxmZwWr27n594hUkNV8HVEOk8y5Doc1s2dVlV
	PiwCDpMyAlxyaS5GsOfBmn75Sy8A97wgEgJsRTeNqZDh+sEohdofbIv+puhlD7s9pU+CSw
	yWt8i7Q/2N/m19smj5XCMx9qWN9Ox2Q=
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 22:56:15 +0100
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] ipa-sra: Make scan_expr_access bail out on
 uninteresting expressions
Message-ID: <Y5ejf0DNK2oESrGl@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <ri6wn6wh8bn.fsf@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ri6wn6wh8bn.fsf@suse.cz>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,GIT_PATCH_0,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,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: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

> Hi,
> 
> I'm re-posting patches which I have posted at the end of stage 1 but
> which have not passed review yet.
> 
> 8<--------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have noticed that scan_expr_access passes all the expressions it
> gets to get_ref_base_and_extent even when we are really only
> interested in memory accesses.  So bail out when the expression is
> something clearly uninteresting.
> 
> Bootstrapped and tested individually when I originally posted it and
> now bootstrapped and LTO-bootstrapped and tested as part of the whole
> series.  OK for master?
> 
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 2021-12-14  Martin Jambor  <mjambor@suse.cz>
> 
> 	* ipa-sra.c (scan_expr_access): Bail out early if expr is something we
> 	clearly do not need to pass to get_ref_base_and_extent.
> ---
>  gcc/ipa-sra.cc | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
> index 93fceeafc73..3646d71468c 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
> +++ b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
> @@ -1748,6 +1748,11 @@ scan_expr_access (tree expr, gimple *stmt, isra_scan_context ctx,
>        || TREE_CODE (expr) == REALPART_EXPR)
>      expr = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0);
>  
> +  if (!handled_component_p (expr)
> +      && !DECL_P (expr)
> +      && TREE_CODE (expr) != MEM_REF)
> +    return;
Is this needed because get_ref_base_and_extend crashes if given SSA_NAME
or something else or is it just optimization?
Perhaps Richi will know if there is better test for this.

Honza
> +
>    base = get_ref_base_and_extent (expr, &poffset, &psize, &pmax_size, &reverse);
>  
>    if (TREE_CODE (base) == MEM_REF)
> -- 
> 2.38.1
>