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
next 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).