public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Henrik Holst <henrik.holst@millistream.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: read_only access attribute as optimizer hint
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:37:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGwK9dw7neagoWZy3AaRborTN1up2GPS8drKpsnCaO1usVDnFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3d85mJv7xTnXurrtF_JVkX15DQTSPQDaTxg8iDtEkJWw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4006 bytes --]

Den ons 7 sep. 2022 kl 09:48 skrev Richard Biener <
richard.guenther@gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 5:19 PM Henrik Holst
> <henrik.holst@millistream.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Den tis 6 sep. 2022 kl 16:47 skrev Richard Biener <
> richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Am 06.09.2022 um 16:23 schrieb Henrik Holst <
> henrik.holst@millistream.com>:
> >> >
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> >  is there any reason why the access attribute is not used as hints to
> the
> >> > optimizer?
> >> >
> >> > If we take this ancient example:
> >> >
> >> > void foo(const int *);
> >> >
> >> > int bar(void)
> >> > {
> >> >    int x = 0;
> >> >    int y = 0;
> >> >
> >> >    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >> >        foo(&x);
> >> >        y += x;  // this load not optimized out
> >> >    }
> >> >    return y;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > The load of X is not optimized out in the loop since the compiler
> does not
> >> > know if the external function foo() will cast away the const
> internally.
> >> > However changing the x variable to const as in:
> >> >
> >> > void foo(const int *);
> >> >
> >> > int bar(void)
> >> > {
> >> >    const int x = 0;
> >> >    int y = 0;
> >> >
> >> >    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >> >        foo(&x);
> >> >        y += x;  // this load is now optimized out
> >> >    }
> >> >    return y;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > The load of x is now optimized out since it is undefined behaviour if
> bar()
> >> > casts the const away when x is declared to be const.
> >> >
> >> > Now what strikes me as odd however is that declaring the function
> access
> >> > attribute to read_only does not hint the compiler to optimize out the
> load
> >> > of x even though read_only is defined as being stronger than const
> ("The
> >> > mode implies a stronger guarantee than the const qualifier which,
> when cast
> >> > away from a pointer, does not prevent the pointed-to object from being
> >> > modified."), so in the following code:
> >> >
> >> > __attribute__ ((access (read_only, 1))) void foo(const int *);
> >> >
> >> > int bar(void)
> >> > {
> >> >    int x = 0;
> >> >    int y = 0;
> >> >
> >> >    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >> >        foo(&x);
> >> >        y += x;  // this load not optimized out even though we have
> set the
> >> > access to read_only
> >> >    }
> >> >    return y;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > The load of x should really be optimized out but isn't. So is this an
> >> > oversight in gcc or is the access attribute completely ignored by the
> >> > optimizer for some good reason?
> >>
> >> It’s ignored because it is not thoroughly specified.  There’s an
> alternate representation the language Frontend can rewrite the attribute to
> to take advantage in optimization if it’s semantics matches.
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> > Ok, didn't really understand the bit about the language Frontend but I
> guess that you are talking about internal GCC things here and thus there is
> nothing that I as a GCC user can do to inform the optimizer that a variable
> is read_only as a hint for external functions. And if so could it be
> "thoroughly specified" to enable this type of optimization or is this just
> "the way it is" ?
>
> Yes, there's currently nothing the user can do.  Looking at the access
> attribute specification it could be used
> to initialize the middle-end used 'fn spec' specification - for
> example the Fortran Frontend uses that to ferry
> the guarantees by the 'INTENT' argument specification.
>
> Richard.
>
Ok, so patches to utilize the access attribute to inform the optimizer
might be accepted?

/HH

>
> >
> > /HH
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > If there is no good reason for this then changing this to hint the
> >> > optimizer should enable some nice optimizations of external functions
> where
> >> > const in the declaration is not cast away.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >  Henrik Holst
>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-07 11:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-06 14:22 Henrik Holst
2022-09-06 14:47 ` Richard Biener
2022-09-06 15:19   ` Henrik Holst
2022-09-07  7:48     ` Richard Biener
2022-09-07 11:37       ` Henrik Holst [this message]
2022-09-07 12:03         ` 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=CAGwK9dw7neagoWZy3AaRborTN1up2GPS8drKpsnCaO1usVDnFw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=henrik.holst@millistream.com \
    --cc=gcc@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).