public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ties Klappe <tg.klappe@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Unjustified optimization due to restricted struct members?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:50:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHSOcvBTzcRnknWWvW6=hM6WxcbCHfe7TXg9tT6aWokOTKZEzg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3BH45DTPbiyqsJUyJvyTq4Rf9ni0h63qU76st_op_ZTg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2003 bytes --]

Thank you Richard.

Similar to the struct example, I was also wondering about why the following
code does *not* get optimized (e.g. https://godbolt.org/z/9eGrjjK81):

int f(int* restrict a[restrict 2]) {
*(a[0]) = 10;
*(a[1]) = 11;
return *(a[0]);
}

Do you happen to know why a reload via a[0] is required? I would have
expected to see the same optimization as is performed for the struct
example.

Kind regards,
Ties

Op do 30 nov 2023 om 13:16 schreef Richard Biener <
richard.guenther@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:07 PM Ties Klappe via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > When reading section 6.7.3.1 of the C standard (quoted below) about
> > the *restrict
> > *type qualifier, the first section talks about *ordinary identifiers*.
> > These are defined in section 6.2.3, and exclude members of structures.
> >
> > Let D be a declaration of an ordinary identifier that provides a means of
> > > designating an object P as a restrict-qualified pointer to type T.
> >
> >
> > I would assume that this means that in the code excerpt below the
> function
> > *h* cannot be optimized by substituting the load of *b.p *for *10*, as
> the
> > standard does not specify what it means for a struct member to be
> restrict
> > qualified. However, the code is still optimized by gcc (but not Clang),
> as
> > can be seen here: https://godbolt.org/z/hEnKKoaae
> >
> > struct bar {
> > int* restrict p;
> > int* restrict q;
> > };
> >
> > int h(struct bar b) {
> > *b.p = 10;
> > *b.q = 11;
> > return *b.p;
> > }
> >
> > Was this a deliberate choice, or does it simply follow from how restrict
> is
> > supported in gcc (and could this be considered a bug w.r.t. the
> standard)?
>
> Hmm, this was a deliberate choice (it also works for global 'b'), I didn't
> think
> the standard would exclude that.  Note GCCs C++ standard library makes
> use of restrict qualified pointers as structure members for example.
>
> Richard.
>

  reply	other threads:[~2023-11-30 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-30 11:05 Ties Klappe
2023-11-30 12:12 ` Richard Biener
2023-11-30 12:50   ` Ties Klappe [this message]
2023-11-30 13:06     ` Richard Biener
2023-11-30 17:16 ` Joseph Myers

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='CAHSOcvBTzcRnknWWvW6=hM6WxcbCHfe7TXg9tT6aWokOTKZEzg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=tg.klappe@gmail.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).