On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 12:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch was supposed to fix PR tree-optimization/64277. Tracker is now
>> fixed by warnings disabling but I think patch is still useful to avoid dead
>> code generated by complete unroll.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>> --
>> gcc/
>>
>> 2015-01-27 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
>>
>> * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (record_nonwrapping_iv): Use base
>> range info when possible to refine estimation.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>>
>> 2015-01-27 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
>>
>> * gcc.dg/pr64277.c: New.
>>
>>
>
> Here is a new version fixed according to comments in the tracker. I also
> fixed a test to scan cunroll dumps. Does it look OK?
Minor comments below.
> What are possible branches for this patch?
You can probably create a testcase that shows code-size regressions
against a version that didn't peel completely (GCC 4.7). Thus I'd say
it would apply to 4.9 as well (4.8 doesn't have range information).
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> --
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64277.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64277.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..c6ef331
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64277.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/64277 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O3 -Wall -Werror -fdump-tree-cunroll-details" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "loop with 5 iterations completely unrolled"
> "cunroll" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "loop with 6 iterations completely unrolled"
> "cunroll" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "cunroll" } } */
> +
> +int f1[10];
> +void test1 (short a[], short m, unsigned short l)
> +{
> + int i = l;
> + for (i = i + 5; i < m; i++)
> + f1[i] = a[i]++;
> +}
> +
> +void test2 (short a[], short m, short l)
> +{
> + int i;
> + if (m > 5)
> + m = 5;
> + for (i = m; i > l; i--)
> + f1[i] = a[i]++;
> +}
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> index 919f5c0..1cd297d 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> @@ -2754,6 +2754,7 @@ record_nonwrapping_iv (struct loop *loop, tree base,
> tree step, gimple stmt,
> {
> tree niter_bound, extreme, delta;
> tree type = TREE_TYPE (base), unsigned_type;
> + tree orig_base = base;
>
> if (TREE_CODE (step) != INTEGER_CST || integer_zerop (step))
> return;
> @@ -2777,16 +2778,30 @@ record_nonwrapping_iv (struct loop *loop, tree base,
> tree step, gimple stmt,
>
> if (tree_int_cst_sign_bit (step))
> {
> + wide_int min, max;
> extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type, low);
> - if (TREE_CODE (base) != INTEGER_CST)
> + if (TREE_CODE (orig_base) == SSA_NAME
> + && TREE_CODE (high) == INTEGER_CST
> + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (orig_base))
> + && get_range_info (orig_base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE
> + && wi::gts_p (wide_int (high), max))
For me a simple wi::gts_p (high, max) worked fine.
> + base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, max);
> + else if (TREE_CODE (base) != INTEGER_CST)
> base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, high);
> delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, base, extreme);
> step = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, unsigned_type, step);
> }
> else
> {
> + wide_int min, max;
> extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type, high);
> - if (TREE_CODE (base) != INTEGER_CST)
> + if (TREE_CODE (orig_base) == SSA_NAME
> + && TREE_CODE (low) == INTEGER_CST
> + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (orig_base))
> + && get_range_info (orig_base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE
> + && wi::gts_p (min, wide_int (low)))
Likewise.
Ok for trunk with that changes. For the 4.9 branch you need to adjust
the patch to not use wide-ints. I'd leave it on trunk for a while and
eventually open a bugreport for the size regression to keep track of it.
Thanks,
Richard.
> + base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, min);
> + else if (TREE_CODE (base) != INTEGER_CST)
> base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, low);
> delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, extreme, base);
> }
