* Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
@ 2020-10-27 18:34 Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-10-28 11:18 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-21 6:13 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2020-10-27 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Jeff Law, Marc Glisse
Hi,
I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of
jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1 in
certain cases:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just a
symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p should
not be registered for incremental updating.
I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
create_new_def_for:
--- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
@@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple *stmt,
def_operand_p def)
{
tree new_name;
+ gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
+
timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
This has of course fired when performing basic block duplication during
threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic blocks
wi
th b_c_p calls:
--- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
@@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block bb)
|| 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)
- || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
+ || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
+ || gimple_call_builtin_p (g, BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
return false;
}
The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
gimple *
vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
{
...
a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
...
tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
The fix is also simple though:
--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
@@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for (tree
name, assert_locus *loc)
if (loc->expr == loc->val)
return false;
+ if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
+ return false;
+
cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr, loc-
>val);
assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
if (loc->e)
My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm planning to
check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further I would
like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but maybe it's
worth it.
Best regards,
Ilya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
2020-10-27 18:34 Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2020-10-28 11:18 ` Richard Biener
2020-10-29 17:20 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-11-21 6:13 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2020-10-28 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ilya Leoshkevich; +Cc: GCC Development, Marc Glisse
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
<gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of
> jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1 in
> certain cases:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
>
> The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just a
> symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p should
> not be registered for incremental updating.
>
> I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
> create_new_def_for:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> @@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple *stmt,
> def_operand_p def)
> {
> tree new_name;
>
> + gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
> +
> timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
>
> if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
>
> This has of course fired when performing basic block duplication during
> threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic blocks
> wi
> th b_c_p calls:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> @@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block bb)
> || 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)
> - || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
> + || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
> + || gimple_call_builtin_p (g, BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
> return false;
> }
>
> The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
>
> gimple *
> vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
> {
> ...
> a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
> assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
> ...
> tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
>
> The fix is also simple though:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> @@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for (tree
> name, assert_locus *loc)
> if (loc->expr == loc->val)
> return false;
>
> + if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
> + return false;
> +
> cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr, loc-
> >val);
> assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
> if (loc->e)
>
> My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm planning to
> check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further I would
> like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
> little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but maybe it's
> worth it.
Disabling threading looks reasonable but I'd rather not disallow BB duplication
or renaming. For VRP I guess we want to instead change
register_edge_assert_for* to not register assertions for the result of
__builtin_constant_p rather than just not allowing VRP to process it
(there are other consumers still).
Richard.
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
2020-10-28 11:18 ` Richard Biener
@ 2020-10-29 17:20 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-10-30 8:22 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2020-10-29 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: GCC Development, Jeff Law, Marc Glisse
On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of
> > jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1
> > in
> > certain cases:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
> >
> > The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just a
> > symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
> > should
> > not be registered for incremental updating.
> >
> > I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
> > create_new_def_for:
> >
> > --- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > @@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple
> > *stmt,
> > def_operand_p def)
> > {
> > tree new_name;
> >
> > + gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
> > +
> > timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
> >
> > if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
> >
> > This has of course fired when performing basic block duplication
> > during
> > threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic
> > blocks
> > wi
> > th b_c_p calls:
> >
> > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > @@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block
> > bb)
> > || 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)
> > - || gimple_call_internal_p (g,
> > IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
> > + || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
> > + || gimple_call_builtin_p (g, BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
> >
> > gimple *
> > vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
> > {
> > ...
> > a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
> > assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
> > ...
> > tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
> >
> > The fix is also simple though:
> >
> > --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > @@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for
> > (tree
> > name, assert_locus *loc)
> > if (loc->expr == loc->val)
> > return false;
> >
> > + if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr,
> > loc-
> > > val);
> > assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
> > if (loc->e)
> >
> > My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm planning
> > to
> > check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further I
> > would
> > like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
> > little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but maybe
> > it's
> > worth it.
>
> Disabling threading looks reasonable but I'd rather not disallow BB
> duplication
> or renaming. For VRP I guess we want to instead change
> register_edge_assert_for* to not register assertions for the result
> of
> __builtin_constant_p rather than just not allowing VRP to process it
> (there are other consumers still).
If I understood Jeff correctly, we should disable incremental updates
for absolutely all b_c_p arguments, so affecting as many consumers as
possible must actually be a good thing when this approach is
considered?
That said, regtest has revealed one more place where this is happening:
rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa_1 -> ... -> add_exit_phi ->
create_new_def_for. The reduced code is:
int a;
void
b (void)
{
while (a)
__builtin_constant_p (a) ?: 0;
if (a == 8)
while (1)
;
}
I guess we are not allowed to cancel this transformation, becase we
really need LCSSA for later passes? This now contradicts the "prohibit
all updates" idea..
If you think that disabling threading is reasonable, could you please
have another look at the original patches?
v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549211.html
Can anything like this go in after all?
Best regards,
Ilya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
2020-10-29 17:20 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2020-10-30 8:22 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-03 13:49 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2020-10-30 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ilya Leoshkevich; +Cc: GCC Development, Jeff Law, Marc Glisse
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:20 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
> > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of
> > > jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1
> > > in
> > > certain cases:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
> > >
> > > The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just a
> > > symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
> > > should
> > > not be registered for incremental updating.
> > >
> > > I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
> > > create_new_def_for:
> > >
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > > @@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple
> > > *stmt,
> > > def_operand_p def)
> > > {
> > > tree new_name;
> > >
> > > + gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
> > > +
> > > timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
> > >
> > > if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
> > >
> > > This has of course fired when performing basic block duplication
> > > during
> > > threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic
> > > blocks
> > > wi
> > > th b_c_p calls:
> > >
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > @@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block
> > > bb)
> > > || 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)
> > > - || gimple_call_internal_p (g,
> > > IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
> > > + || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
> > > + || gimple_call_builtin_p (g, BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
> > > return false;
> > > }
> > >
> > > The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
> > >
> > > gimple *
> > > vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
> > > assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
> > > ...
> > > tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
> > >
> > > The fix is also simple though:
> > >
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > > @@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for
> > > (tree
> > > name, assert_locus *loc)
> > > if (loc->expr == loc->val)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > + if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr,
> > > loc-
> > > > val);
> > > assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
> > > if (loc->e)
> > >
> > > My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm planning
> > > to
> > > check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further I
> > > would
> > > like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
> > > little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but maybe
> > > it's
> > > worth it.
> >
> > Disabling threading looks reasonable but I'd rather not disallow BB
> > duplication
> > or renaming. For VRP I guess we want to instead change
> > register_edge_assert_for* to not register assertions for the result
> > of
> > __builtin_constant_p rather than just not allowing VRP to process it
> > (there are other consumers still).
>
> If I understood Jeff correctly, we should disable incremental updates
> for absolutely all b_c_p arguments, so affecting as many consumers as
> possible must actually be a good thing when this approach is
> considered?
>
> That said, regtest has revealed one more place where this is happening:
> rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa_1 -> ... -> add_exit_phi ->
> create_new_def_for. The reduced code is:
>
> int a;
>
> void
> b (void)
> {
> while (a)
> __builtin_constant_p (a) ?: 0;
> if (a == 8)
> while (1)
> ;
> }
>
> I guess we are not allowed to cancel this transformation, becase we
> really need LCSSA for later passes? This now contradicts the "prohibit
> all updates" idea..
Yes. I believe this looks at the issue from a wrong angle. SSA rewrite
is just renaming and that's OK.
> If you think that disabling threading is reasonable, could you please
> have another look at the original patches?
>
> v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549211.html
>
> Can anything like this go in after all?
For v2 I'm not sure why we would allow b_c_p late? That said, both
approaches are reasonable - disallow threading or force bcp to
evaluate to zero (guess that relies on the non-threaded variant to
be known to be _not_ constant, otherwise we create another
inconsistecy?). So for sure v1 looks "safer" at the possible expense
of less (early) optimization. Of course backward threading is not
the only source of jump threading (but it's the only truly early one).
Richard.
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
2020-10-30 8:22 ` Richard Biener
@ 2020-11-03 13:49 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2020-11-03 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: GCC Development, Jeff Law, Marc Glisse, Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, 2020-10-30 at 09:22 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:20 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
> > > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction
> > > > of
> > > > jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly
> > > > return 1
> > > > in
> > > > certain cases:
> > > >
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
> > > >
> > > > The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just
> > > > a
> > > > symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
> > > > should
> > > > not be registered for incremental updating.
> > > >
> > > > I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
> > > > create_new_def_for:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> > > > @@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple
> > > > *stmt,
> > > > def_operand_p def)
> > > > {
> > > > tree new_name;
> > > >
> > > > + gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
> > > > +
> > > > timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
> > > >
> > > > if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
> > > >
> > > > This has of course fired when performing basic block
> > > > duplication
> > > > during
> > > > threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic
> > > > blocks
> > > > wi
> > > > th b_c_p calls:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> > > > @@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p
> > > > (const_basic_block
> > > > bb)
> > > > || 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)
> > > > - || gimple_call_internal_p (g,
> > > > IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
> > > > + || gimple_call_internal_p (g,
> > > > IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
> > > > + || gimple_call_builtin_p (g,
> > > > BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
> > > >
> > > > gimple *
> > > > vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
> > > > {
> > > > ...
> > > > a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
> > > > assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
> > > > ...
> > > > tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
> > > >
> > > > The fix is also simple though:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > > > @@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for
> > > > (tree
> > > > name, assert_locus *loc)
> > > > if (loc->expr == loc->val)
> > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > + if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr,
> > > > loc-
> > > > > val);
> > > > assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
> > > > if (loc->e)
> > > >
> > > > My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm
> > > > planning
> > > > to
> > > > check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further
> > > > I
> > > > would
> > > > like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
> > > > little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but
> > > > maybe
> > > > it's
> > > > worth it.
> > >
> > > Disabling threading looks reasonable but I'd rather not disallow
> > > BB
> > > duplication
> > > or renaming. For VRP I guess we want to instead change
> > > register_edge_assert_for* to not register assertions for the
> > > result
> > > of
> > > __builtin_constant_p rather than just not allowing VRP to process
> > > it
> > > (there are other consumers still).
> >
> > If I understood Jeff correctly, we should disable incremental
> > updates
> > for absolutely all b_c_p arguments, so affecting as many consumers
> > as
> > possible must actually be a good thing when this approach is
> > considered?
> >
> > That said, regtest has revealed one more place where this is
> > happening:
> > rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa_1 -> ... -> add_exit_phi ->
> > create_new_def_for. The reduced code is:
> >
> > int a;
> >
> > void
> > b (void)
> > {
> > while (a)
> > __builtin_constant_p (a) ?: 0;
> > if (a == 8)
> > while (1)
> > ;
> > }
> >
> > I guess we are not allowed to cancel this transformation, becase we
> > really need LCSSA for later passes? This now contradicts the
> > "prohibit
> > all updates" idea..
>
> Yes. I believe this looks at the issue from a wrong angle. SSA
> rewrite
> is just renaming and that's OK.
>
> > If you think that disabling threading is reasonable, could you
> > please
> > have another look at the original patches?
> >
> > v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> > v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549211.html
> >
> > Can anything like this go in after all?
>
> For v2 I'm not sure why we would allow b_c_p late? That said, both
> approaches are reasonable - disallow threading or force bcp to
> evaluate to zero (guess that relies on the non-threaded variant to
> be known to be _not_ constant, otherwise we create another
> inconsistecy?). So for sure v1 looks "safer" at the possible expense
> of less (early) optimization. Of course backward threading is not
> the only source of jump threading (but it's the only truly early
> one).
According to the doc, returning 0 conservatively should not create
inconsistencies:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
A return of 0 does not indicate that the value is not a constant, but
merely that GCC cannot prove it is a constant with the specified value
of the -O option.
v2 was suggested by Jakub as a possible optimization here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549078.html
However, I don't see any differences between v1 and v2 neither in SPEC
nor in vmlinux builds on x86_64, so I think the additional complexity
is not worth it.
There are a few differences between master and v1/v2 in x86_64 vmlinux
builds though. For example:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10-rc2/source/kernel/tracepoint.c#L56
Here master performs threading for the overflow case:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10-rc2/source/include/linux/overflow.h#L297
where the allocated size ends up being SIZE_MAX. Threading goes as far
as this b_c_p in kmalloc:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10-rc2/source/include/linux/slab.h#L538
and ends up emitting jo to kmalloc_large call after mul that
calculates the size.
I haven't analyzed all the cases, but the asm diff (including context)
is just 2k lines, which isn't a lot, given that vmlinux objdump is 6m
lines.
Best regards,
Ilya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p
2020-10-27 18:34 Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-10-28 11:18 ` Richard Biener
@ 2020-11-21 6:13 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2020-11-21 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ilya Leoshkevich, gcc; +Cc: Marc Glisse
On 10/27/20 12:34 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of
> jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1 in
> certain cases:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html
>
> The conclusion was that this happening during threading is just a
> symptom of a deeper problem: SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p should
> not be registered for incremental updating.
That's perhaps not as precise as we'd like to be.
Simply registering the SSA_NAME isn't the problem. It's the need to
generate a PHI to resolve the incremental update that causes the
problems. And as much as anything it's a sanity check that we're not
filtering out jump threading cases that we should (ignore the case for
now where the PHI we generate is a degenerate).
Now it may be painful to actually detect those cases. I haven't looked
at the into-ssa bits in years.
>
> I performed a little experiment and added an assertion to
> create_new_def_for:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
> @@ -2996,6 +3014,8 @@ create_new_def_for (tree old_name, gimple *stmt,
> def_operand_p def)
> {
> tree new_name;
>
> + gcc_checking_assert (!used_by_bcp_p (old_name));
> +
> timevar_push (TV_TREE_SSA_INCREMENTAL);
>
> if (!update_ssa_initialized_fn)
>
> This has of course fired when performing basic block duplication during
> threading, which can be fixed by avoiding duplication of basic blocks
> wi
> th b_c_p calls:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> @@ -6224,7 +6224,8 @@ gimple_can_duplicate_bb_p (const_basic_block bb)
> || 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)
> - || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)))
> + || gimple_call_internal_p (g, IFN_GOMP_SIMT_XCHG_IDX)
> + || gimple_call_builtin_p (g, BUILT_IN_CONSTANT_P)))
> return false;
> }
Yea, that's a reasonable place to start with the checking assert to see
how pervasive these problems are. I probably wouldn't just blindly
disable threading through blocks with b_c_p call, but again, it seems
like a reasonable thing to do to help get a sense of other problem areas.
>
> The second occurrence is a bit more interesting:
>
> gimple *
> vrp_insert::build_assert_expr_for (tree cond, tree v)
> {
> ...
> a = build2 (ASSERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (v), v, cond);
> assertion = gimple_build_assign (NULL_TREE, a);
> ...
> tree new_def = create_new_def_for (v, assertion, NULL);
>
> The fix is also simple though:
>
> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> @@ -3101,6 +3101,9 @@ vrp_insert::process_assert_insertions_for (tree
> name, assert_locus *loc)
> if (loc->expr == loc->val)
> return false;
>
> + if (used_by_bcp_p (name))
> + return false;
> +
> cond = build2 (loc->comp_code, boolean_type_node, loc->expr, loc-
>> val);
> assert_stmt = build_assert_expr_for (cond, name);
> if (loc->e)
>
> My original testcase did not trigger anything else. I'm planning to
> check how this affects the testsuite, but before going further I would
> like to ask: is this the right direction now? To me it looks a
> little-bit more heavy-handed than the original approach, but maybe it's
> worth it.
It seems a bit heavy-handed. But that's not based on any hard data,
just a sense that we may not want to disable threading this aggressively.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-21 6:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-27 18:34 Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-10-28 11:18 ` Richard Biener
2020-10-29 17:20 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-10-30 8:22 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-03 13:49 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2020-11-21 6:13 ` Jeff Law
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).