public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tree-cfg: do not duplicate returns_twice calls
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 23:10:14 +0300 (MSK)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4fb717d-6eaa-f5c-da99-ef71ed89f73e@ispras.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3VswCzhhJcTF-vYJwqhvUgEMc33RY_N85qhP9J-N7Ddg@mail.gmail.com>


Apologies for the prolonged silence Richard, it is a bit of an obscure topic,
and I was unsure I'd be able to handle any complications in a timely manner.
I'm ready to revisit it now, please see below.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:21 PM Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> >
> > A returns_twice call may have associated abnormal edges that correspond
> > to the "second return" from the call. If the call is duplicated, the
> > copies of those edges also need to be abnormal, but e.g. tracer does not
> > enforce that. Just prohibit the (unlikely to be useful) duplication.
> 
> The general CFG copying routines properly duplicate those edges, no?

No (in fact you say so in the next paragraph). In general I think they cannot,
abnormal edges are a special case, so it should be the responsibility of the
caller.

> Tracer uses duplicate_block so it should also get copies of all successor
> edges of that block.  It also only traces along normal edges.  What it might
> miss is abnormal incoming edges - is that what you are referring to?

Yes (I think its entire point is to build a "trace" of duplicated blocks that
does not have incoming edges in the middle, abnormal or not).

> That would be a thing we don't handle in duplicate_block on its own but
> that callers are expected to do (though I don't see copy_bbs doing that
> either).  I wonder if we can trigger this issue for some testcase?

Oh yes (in fact my desire to find a testcase delayed this quite a bit).
When compiling the following testcase with -O2 -ftracer:

__attribute__((returns_twice))
int rtwice_a(int), rtwice_b(int);

int f(int *x)
{
        volatile unsigned k, i = (*x);

        for (k = 1; (i = rtwice_a(i)) * k; k = 2);

        for (; (i = rtwice_b(i)) * k; k = 4);

        return k;
}

tracer manages to eliminate the ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER block completely, so
the possibility of transferring control back to rtwice_a from rtwice_b
is no longer modeled in the IR. I could spend some time "upgrading" this
to an end-to-end miscompilation, but I hope you agree this is quite broken
already.

> The thing to check would be incoming abnormal edges in
> can_duplicate_block_p, not (only) returns twice functions?

Unfortunately not, abnormal edges are also used for computed gotos, which are
less magic than returns_twice edges and should not block tracer I think.

This implies patch 1/3 [1] unnecessary blocks sinking to computed goto targets.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/588498.html

How would you like to proceed here? Is my initial patch ok?

Alexander

> 
> Richard.
> 
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> >         * tree-cfg.c (gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p): Reject blocks with
> >         calls that may return twice.
> > ---
> >  gcc/tree-cfg.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > index b7fe313b7..a99f1acb4 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > @@ -6304,12 +6304,15 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block bb)
> >      {
> >        gimple *g = gsi_stmt (gsi);
> >
> > -      /* An IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC/IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT call must be
> > +      /* Prohibit duplication of returns_twice calls, otherwise associated
> > +        abnormal edges also need to be duplicated properly.
> > +        An IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC/IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT call must be
> >          duplicated as part of its group, or not at all.
> >          The IFN_GOMP_SIMT_VOTE_ANY and IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_* are part of such a
> >          group, so the same holds there.  */
> >        if (is_gimple_call (g)
> > -         && (gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC)
> > +         && (gimple_call_flags (g) & ECF_RETURNS_TWICE
> > +             || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_ENTER_ALLOC)
> >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_EXIT)
> >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_VOTE_ANY)
> >               || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_BFLY)
> > --
> > 2.33.1
> >
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-12 20:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-13 14:25 [RFC PATCH] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp Alexander Monakov
2021-12-13 14:45 ` Richard Biener
2021-12-13 15:20   ` Alexander Monakov
2021-12-14 11:10     ` Алексей Нурмухаметов
2022-01-03 13:41       ` Richard Biener
2022-01-03 16:35         ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-04  7:25           ` Richard Biener
2022-01-14 18:20             ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 1/3] " Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  7:47               ` Richard Biener
2023-11-08  9:04               ` Florian Weimer
2023-11-08 10:01                 ` Richard Biener
2023-11-08 13:06                   ` Alexander Monakov
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 2/3] tree-cfg: do not duplicate returns_twice calls Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  8:08               ` Richard Biener
2022-07-12 20:10                 ` Alexander Monakov [this message]
2022-07-13  7:13                   ` Richard Biener
2022-07-13 14:57                     ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-14  6:38                       ` Richard Biener
2022-07-14 20:12                         ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-19  8:40                           ` Richard Biener
2022-07-19 20:00                             ` Alexander Monakov
2022-07-13 16:01                     ` Jeff Law
2022-01-14 18:20             ` [PATCH 3/3] tree-cfg: check placement of " Alexander Monakov
2022-01-17  8:12               ` 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=c4fb717d-6eaa-f5c-da99-ef71ed89f73e@ispras.ru \
    --to=amonakov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    /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).