From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: "Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>,
ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: vect: Make vect_check_gather_scatter reject offsets that aren't multiples of BITS_PER_UNIT [PR107346]
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:29:40 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2210241328200.4294@jbgna.fhfr.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3cc86b91-eef3-7def-7b3b-464c58369f4b@arm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3890 bytes --]
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2022 13:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/10/2022 08:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> Can you check why vect_find_stmt_data_reference doesn't trip on the
> >>>
> >>> if (TREE_CODE (DR_REF (dr)) == COMPONENT_REF
> >>> && DECL_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (DR_REF (dr), 1)))
> >>> {
> >>> free_data_ref (dr);
> >>> return opt_result::failure_at (stmt,
> >>> "not vectorized:"
> >>> " statement is an unsupported"
> >>> " bitfield access %G", stmt);
> >>> }
> >> It used to, which is why this test didn't trigger the error before my
> >> patch,
> >> but we lower it to BIT_FIELD_REFs in ifcvt now so it is no longer a
> >> DECL_BIT_FIELD.
> >>
> >> But that is a red-herring, if you change the test structure's 'type Int24
> >> is
> >> mod 2**24;' to 'type Int24 is mod 2**32;', thus making the field we access
> >> a
> >> normal 32-bit integer, the field no longer is a DECL_BIT_FIELD and thus my
> >> lowering does nothing. However, you will still get the failure because the
> >> field before it is a packed 4-bit field, making the offset to the field we
> >> are
> >> accessing less than BITS_PER_UNIT.
> > Hmm, so the _intent_ of DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE is to definitely
> > _not_ be a DECL_BIT_FIELD (well, that's the whole point!). So this
> > shows an issue with setting up DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE? Of course
> > for a type with an alignment less than BITS_PER_UNIT (is StructB actually
> > such a type?) there cannot be a representative that isn't, so maybe
> > we should then set DECL_BIT_FIELD on it with a condition like Eric
> > mentions?
> I could do this, but it would not resolve the latent issue as I could still
> reproduce it without using any of the bitfield lowering code, see below.
> >
> >>> ? I think we should amend this check and I guess that
> >>> checking multiple_p on DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET should be enough?
> >> That won't work either, unless we do the same walk-through the full access
> >> as
> >> we do in get_inner_reference.
> > I suppose we should not "if-convert" bit field accesses with a
> > DECL_BIT_FIELD representative. There isn't any benefit doing that
> > (not for general bitfield lowering either).
> Changing if-convert would merely change this testcase but we could still
> trigger using a different structure type, changing the size of Int24 to 32
> bits rather than 24:
> package Loop_Optimization23_Pkg is
> type Nibble is mod 2**4;
> type Int24 is mod 2**32; -- Changed this from 24->32
> type StructA is record
> a : Nibble;
> b : Int24;
> end record;
> pragma Pack(StructA);
> type StructB is record
> a : Nibble;
> b : StructA;
> end record;
> pragma Pack(StructB);
> type ArrayOfStructB is array(0..100) of StructB;
> procedure Foo (X : in out ArrayOfStructB);
> end Loop_Optimization23_Pkg;
>
> This would yield a DR_REF (dr): (*x_7(D))[_1].b.b where the last 'b' isn't a
> DECL_BIT_FIELD anymore, but the first one still is and still has the
> non-multiple of BITS_PER_UNIT offset. Thus passing the
> vect_find_stmt_data_reference check and triggering the
> vect_check_gather_scatter failure. So unless we go and make sure we always set
> the DECL_BIT_FIELD on all subsequent accesses of a DECL_BIT_FIELD 'struct'
> (which is odd enough on its own) then we are better off catching the issue in
> vect_check_gather_scatter ?
But it's not only an issue with scatter-gather, other load/store handling
assumes it can create a pointer to the start of the access and thus
requires BITS_PER_UNIT alignment for each of them. So we need to fail
at data-ref analysis somehow.
Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-24 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-21 16:42 Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-10-24 7:17 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-24 8:31 ` Eric Botcazou
2022-10-24 10:31 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-10-24 12:46 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-24 13:24 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-10-24 13:29 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2022-10-28 13:43 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-10-28 13:46 ` 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=nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2210241328200.4294@jbgna.fhfr.qr \
--to=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com \
--cc=ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.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).