On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Not sure if this patch catches everything though, perhaps there could be
> >e.g.
> >(set (reg:SI ...) (plus:SI ((subreg:SI (reg:QI ...) 0) (const_int ...)))
> >and we'd still assign REG_EQUAL note.  So maybe instead we should walk the
> >*loc expression and look for paradoxical subregs, and for each of them, if
> >we find the DF_REF_REG (use) mentioned in their operand, clear
> >set_reg_equal.  Though of course, if DF_REF_REG (use) itself is a
> >paradoxical subreg, we could clear set_reg_equal without any walking.
> 
> It seems like something like that could happen.
> 
> How much do we lose if we just don't make new REG_EQUAL notes here?

After IRC discussions, I've bootstrapped/regtested following patch that
just punts if *loc contains any paradoxical subregs, together with
additional statistics gathering that proved that the new testcase is
the only spot in which this patch makes a difference on x86_64-linux
and i686-linux bootstrap/regtest.

Of course on other targets it might affect more.

Ok for trunk?

2016-04-08  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR rtl-optimization/70574
        * fwprop.c (forward_propagate_and_simplify): Don't add
        REG_EQUAL note if DF_REF_REG (use) is a paradoxical subreg.
        (try_fwprop_subst): Don't add REG_EQUAL note if there are any
        paradoxical subregs within *loc.

        * gcc.target/i386/avx2-pr70574.c: New test.

--- gcc/fwprop.c.jj     2016-04-07 23:27:41.396310248 +0200
+++ gcc/fwprop.c        2016-04-08 15:51:09.164706722 +0200
@@ -999,10 +999,27 @@ try_fwprop_subst (df_ref use, rtx *loc,
         making a new one if one does not already exist.  */
       if (set_reg_equal)
        {
-         if (dump_file)
-           fprintf (dump_file, " Setting REG_EQUAL note\n");
+         /* If there are any paradoxical SUBREGs, don't add REG_EQUAL note,
+            because the bits in there can be anything and so might not
+            match the REG_EQUAL note content.  See PR70574.  */
+         subrtx_var_iterator::array_type array;
+         FOR_EACH_SUBRTX_VAR (iter, array, *loc, NONCONST)
+           {
+             rtx x = *iter;
+             if (SUBREG_P (x) && paradoxical_subreg_p (x))
+               {
+                 set_reg_equal = false;
+                 break;
+               }
+           }
+
+         if (set_reg_equal)
+           {
+             if (dump_file)
+               fprintf (dump_file, " Setting REG_EQUAL note\n");
 
-         note = set_unique_reg_note (insn, REG_EQUAL, copy_rtx (new_rtx));
+             note = set_unique_reg_note (insn, REG_EQUAL, copy_rtx (new_rtx));
+           }
        }
     }
 
@@ -1300,14 +1317,19 @@ forward_propagate_and_simplify (df_ref u
         that isn't mentioned in USE_SET, as the note would be invalid
         otherwise.  We also don't want to install a note if we are merely
         propagating a pseudo since verifying that this pseudo isn't dead
-        is a pain; moreover such a note won't help anything.  */
+        is a pain; moreover such a note won't help anything.
+        If the use is a paradoxical subreg, make sure we don't add a
+        REG_EQUAL note for it, because it is not equivalent, it is one
+        possible value for it, but we can't rely on it holding that value.
+        See PR70574.  */
       set_reg_equal = (note == NULL_RTX
                       && REG_P (SET_DEST (use_set))
                       && !REG_P (src)
                       && !(GET_CODE (src) == SUBREG
                            && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (src)))
                       && !reg_mentioned_p (SET_DEST (use_set),
-                                           SET_SRC (use_set)));
+                                           SET_SRC (use_set))
+                      && !paradoxical_subreg_p (DF_REF_REG (use)));
     }
 
   if (GET_MODE (*loc) == VOIDmode)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx2-pr70574.c.jj     2016-04-08 
13:32:04.525196849 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx2-pr70574.c        2016-04-08 
13:32:04.525196849 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+/* PR rtl-optimization/70574 */
+/* { dg-do run { target lp64 } } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target avx2 } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-ccp -mcmodel=medium 
-mavx2" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-fPIC" { target fpic } } */
+
+#include "avx2-check.h"
+
+typedef char A __attribute__((vector_size (32)));
+typedef short B __attribute__((vector_size (32)));
+
+int
+foo (int x, __int128 y, __int128 z, A w)
+{
+  y <<= 64;
+  w *= (A) { 0, -1, z, 0, ~y };
+  return w[0] + ((B) { x, 0, y, 0, -1 } | 1)[4];
+}
+
+static void
+avx2_test ()
+{
+  int x = foo (0, 0, 0, (A) {});
+  if (x != -1)
+    __builtin_abort ();
+}


        Jakub

Reply via email to