On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-04-26 17:55 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-04-26 17:07 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 2016-04-25 18:27 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ilya, can you take a look?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> H.J.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Algorithmic part of the patch looks OK to me except the following piece
>>>>> of code.
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* Check REF's chain to add new insns into a queue
>>>>> + and find registers requiring conversion. */
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment is wrong because you don't have any conversions required for
>>>>> your candidates.
>>>>
>>>> I will fix it.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void
>>>>> +scalar_chain_64::analyze_register_chain (bitmap candidates, df_ref ref)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + df_link *chain;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + gcc_assert (bitmap_bit_p (insns, DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref))
>>>>> + || bitmap_bit_p (candidates, DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref)));
>>>>> + add_to_queue (DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + for (chain = DF_REF_CHAIN (ref); chain; chain = chain->next)
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + unsigned uid = DF_REF_INSN_UID (chain->ref);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!NONDEBUG_INSN_P (DF_REF_INSN (chain->ref)))
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!DF_REF_REG_MEM_P (chain->ref))
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe here you wrongly jump to the next ref intead of actually adding
>>>>> it
>>>>> to a queue. You may just use
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc_assert (!DF_REF_REG_MEM_P (chain->ref));
>>>>>
>>>>> because you should'n have a candidate used in address operand.
>>>>
>>>> I will update.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (bitmap_bit_p (insns, uid))
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (bitmap_bit_p (candidates, uid))
>>>>> + add_to_queue (uid);
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably gcc_assert (bitmap_bit_p (candidates, uid)) since no uses and
>>>>> defs
>>>>> out of candidates list are allowed?
>>>>
>>>> That would be wrong since there are
>>>>
>>>> while (!bitmap_empty_p (queue))
>>>> {
>>>> insn_uid = bitmap_first_set_bit (queue);
>>>> bitmap_clear_bit (queue, insn_uid);
>>>> bitmap_clear_bit (candidates, insn_uid);
>>>> add_insn (candidates, insn_uid);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> An instruction is a candidate and the bit is cleared when
>>>> analyze_register_chain is called.
>>>
>>> You clear candidates bit but the first thing you do in add_insn is set
>>> insns bit.
>>> Thus you should hit:
>>>
>>> if (bitmap_bit_p (insns, uid))
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> For handled candidates.
>>>
>>> Probably it would be more clear if we keep this clear/set pair
>>> together? E.g. move
>>> bitmap_clear_bit (candidates, insn_uid) to scalar_chain::add_insn.
>>>
>>
>> After we started processing candidates, we only use candidates
>> to check if an instruction is a candidate, not to check if an
>> instruction is NOT a candidate.
>
> I don't see how it's related to what I said. My point is that
> when you analyze added insn you shouldn't reach insns which are both
> not in candidates and not in current scalar_chain_64. That's why I
> think you miss an assert in scalar_chain_64::analyze_register_chain.
Since all candidates will be processed by
while (!bitmap_empty_p (queue))
{
insn_uid = bitmap_first_set_bit (queue);
bitmap_clear_bit (queue, insn_uid);
bitmap_clear_bit (candidates, insn_uid);
add_insn (candidates, insn_uid);
}
I will change to
/* Check REF's chain to add new insns into a queue. */
void
timode_scalar_chain::analyze_register_chain (bitmap candidates,
df_ref ref)
{
gcc_assert (bitmap_bit_p (insns, DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref))
|| bitmap_bit_p (candidates, DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref)));
add_to_queue (DF_REF_INSN_UID (ref));
}
--
H.J.
