From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-173220-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18284 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2012 15:25:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 18231 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2012 15:25:16 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.213.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:25:03 +0000
Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so1628636yen.20        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.170.71 with SMTP id o47mr33943802yhl.104.1333034702954; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.153.12 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1SD6vdqMYjKVPPMOMLDXo6+5YO-39qQ86+F=02ZEuQNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHFci2_d_vcB_-iag7p6MeCOjKL60YrAreAbz6AWgY8+=3rCQg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc1EZM1pN5Zj19HugN_Ex=Nb3bf8sSquMiPkgCqOi-A_9Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAHFci2_4QJFN-zbN8vsf4xe+gavs5KJCV_SSworyvgj3W5GG4Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc1SD6vdqMYjKVPPMOMLDXo6+5YO-39qQ86+F=02ZEuQNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAHFci28gpFyRQvmJA-wv9EhRQjH46J137BD5DYBHw8-fermQBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Missed optimization in PRE?
From: "Bin.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00476.txt.bz2

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Following is the tree dump of 094t.pre for a test program.
>>>> Question is loads of D.5375_12/D.5375_14 are redundant on path <bb2,
>>>> bb7, bb5, bb6>,
>>>> but why not lowered into basic block 3, where it is used.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, seems no tree pass handles this case currently.
>>>
>>> tree-ssa-sink.c should do this.
>>>
>> It does not work for me, I will double check and update soon.
>
> Well, "should" as in, it's the place to do it. =A0And certainly the pass =
can sink
> loads, so this must be a missed optimization.
>
Curiously, it is said explicitly that "We don't want to sink loads from mem=
ory."
in tree-ssa-sink.c function statement_sink_location, and the condition is

  if (stmt_ends_bb_p (stmt)
      || gimple_has_side_effects (stmt)
      || gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt)
      || (gimple_vuse (stmt) && !gimple_vdef (stmt))
<-----------------check load
      || (cfun->has_local_explicit_reg_vars
	  && TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt))) =3D=3D BLKmode))
    return false;

I haven't found any clue about this decision in ChangeLogs.


--=20
Best Regards.