While looking into some failures on the pointer plus branch after fixing up
forwprop, I noticed that we would get a failure in the vectorizer testsuite and
the reason is because we no longer could determine dependence for the two data
accesses.
Here is the testcase which is a modified version of vect-102.c which gets us
the same IR as what the pointer plus branch gives:
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include "tree-vect.h"
#define N 9
struct extraction
{
int a[N];
int b[N];
};
static int a[N] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
static int b[N] = {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,9};
int main1 (int x, int y) {
int i;
unsigned x1 = x;
struct extraction *p;
p = (struct extraction *) malloc (sizeof (struct extraction));
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
p->a[i] = a[i];
if (x == 135)
abort (); /* to avoid vectorization */
}
/* Not vectorizable: distance 1. */
for (i = 0; i < N - 1; i++)
{
p->a[x1 + i] = p->a[x1 + i + 1];
}
/* check results: */
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
if (p->a[i] != b[i])
abort();
}
return 0;
}
int main (void)
{
check_vect ();
return main1 (0, N);
}
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 0 "vect" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "possible dependence between data-refs" 1
"vect" } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
-------------------------- cut ---------------
if you change the 1 to 8, we should be able to vectorize that loop too.
Note I was wrong in PR 31995, that we got the same IR for that testcase as we
got for this bug, I had missed the cast in the IR. Anyways this is
represenative of what the IR looks like for the testcase on the pointer plus
branch.
--
Summary: can't determine dependence between p->a[x+i] and p-
>a[x+i+1] where x is invariant but defined in the
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32075