public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] lower-bitint: Remove single label _BitInt switches [PR113737]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 08:54:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZcCUHdSLzNrlJqoh@tucnak> (raw)

Hi!

The following testcase ICEs, because group_case_labels_stmt optimizes
  switch (a.0_7) <default: <L6> [50.00%], case 0: <L7> [50.00%], case 2: <L7> [50.00%]>
where L7 block starts with __builtin_unreachable (); to
  switch (a.0_7) <default: <L6> [50.00%]>
and single label GIMPLE_SWITCH is something the switch expansion refuses to
lower:
  if (gimple_switch_num_labels (m_switch) == 1
      || range_check_type (index_type) == NULL_TREE)
    return false;
(range_check_type never returns NULL for BITINT_TYPE), but the gimple
lowering pass relies on all large/huge _BitInt switches to be lowered
by that pass.

The following patch just removes those after making the single successor
edge EDGE_FALLTHRU.  I've done it even if !optimize just in case in case
we'd end up with single case label from earlier passes.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2024-02-05  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR tree-optimization/113737
	* gimple-lower-bitint.cc (gimple_lower_bitint): If GIMPLE_SWITCH
	has just a single label, remove it and make single successor edge
	EDGE_FALLTHRU.

	* gcc.dg/bitint-84.c: New test.

--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj	2024-02-02 11:30:05.801776658 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc	2024-02-03 12:49:52.997777574 +0100
@@ -5832,7 +5832,14 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void)
 
 	  if (optimize)
 	    group_case_labels_stmt (swtch);
-	  switch_statements.safe_push (swtch);
+	  if (gimple_switch_num_labels (swtch) == 1)
+	    {
+	      single_succ_edge (bb)->flags |= EDGE_FALLTHRU;
+	      gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (swtch);
+	      gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
+	    }
+	  else
+	    switch_statements.safe_push (swtch);
 	}
     }
 
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-84.c.jj	2024-02-03 12:56:08.153622744 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-84.c	2024-02-03 12:57:05.425835789 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/113737 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -std=c23" } */
+
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
+_BitInt(129) a;
+#else
+_BitInt(63) a;
+#endif
+
+int b[1], c;
+
+int
+foo (void)
+{
+  switch (a)
+  case 0:
+  case 2:
+    return 1;
+  return 0;
+}
+
+void
+bar (int i)
+{
+  for (;; ++i)
+    {
+      c = b[i];
+      if (!foo ())
+	__asm__ ("");
+    }
+}

	Jakub


             reply	other threads:[~2024-02-05  7:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-05  7:54 Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2024-02-05  8:59 ` 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=ZcCUHdSLzNrlJqoh@tucnak \
    --to=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --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).