And the patch..
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener
>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener
>>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Richard Biener
>>>>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> This patch is to fix PR80153. As analyzed in the PR, root cause is
>>>>>>>>>> tree_affine lacks
>>>>>>>>>> ability differentiating (unsigned)(ptr + offset) and (unsigned)ptr +
>>>>>>>>>> (unsigned)offset,
>>>>>>>>>> even worse, it always returns the former expression in
>>>>>>>>>> aff_combination_tree, which
>>>>>>>>>> is wrong if the original expression has the latter form. The patch
>>>>>>>>>> resolves the issue
>>>>>>>>>> by always returning the latter form expression, i.e, always trying
>>>>>>>>>> to generate folded
>>>>>>>>>> expression. Also as analyzed in comment, I think this change won't
>>>>>>>>>> result in substantial
>>>>>>>>>> code gen difference.
>>>>>>>>>> I also need to adjust get_computation_aff for test case
>>>>>>>>>> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-19.c.
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I think the changed behavior is correct, but for case the
>>>>>>>>>> original pointer candidate
>>>>>>>>>> is chosen, it should be unnecessary to compute in uutype. Also this
>>>>>>>>>> adjustment only
>>>>>>>>>> generates (unsigned)(pointer + offset) which is generated by
>>>>>>>>>> tree-affine.c.
>>>>>>>>>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing.
>>>>>>>>> Hmm. What is the desired goal? To have all elts added have
>>>>>>>>> comb->type as type? Then
>>>>>>>>> the type passed to add_elt_to_tree is redundant with comb->type. It
>>>>>>>>> looks like it
>>>>>>>>> is always passed comb->type now.
>>>>>>>> Yes, except pointer type comb->type, elts are converted to comb->type
>>>>>>>> with this patch.
>>>>>>>> The redundant type is removed in updated patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ISTR from past work in this area that it was important for pointer
>>>>>>>>> combinations to allow
>>>>>>>>> both pointer and sizetype elts at least.
>>>>>>>> Yes, It's still important to allow different types for pointer and
>>>>>>>> offset in pointer type comb.
>>>>>>>> I missed a pointer type check condition in the patch, fixed in updated
>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your change is incomplete I think, for the scale == -1 and
>>>>>>>>> POINTER_TYPE_P case
>>>>>>>>> elt is sizetype now, not of pointer type. As said above, we are
>>>>>>>>> trying to maintain
>>>>>>>>> both pointer and sizetype elts with like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if (scale == 1)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> if (!expr)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
>>>>>>>>> return elt;
>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>> return fold_convert (type1, elt);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where your earilier fold to type would result in not all cases
>>>>>>>>> handled the same
>>>>>>>>> (depending whether scale was -1 for example).
>>>>>>>> IIUC, it doesn't matter. For comb->type being pointer type, the
>>>>>>>> behavior remains the same.
>>>>>>>> For comb->type being unsigned T, this elt is converted to ptr_offtype,
>>>>>>>> rather than unsigned T,
>>>>>>>> this doesn't matter because ptr_offtype and unsigned T are equal to
>>>>>>>> each other, otherwise
>>>>>>>> tree_to_aff_combination shouldn't distribute it as a single elt.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, this is addressed in updated patch by checking pointer
>>>>>>>> comb->type additionally.
>>>>>>>> BTW, I think "scale==-1" case is a simple heuristic differentiating
>>>>>>>> pointer_base and offset.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus - shouldn't we simply drop the type argument (or rather the comb
>>>>>>>>> one?
>>>>>>>>> that wide_int_ext_for_comb looks weird given we get a widest_int as
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> and all the other wide_int_ext_for_comb calls around).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And unconditionally convert to type, simplifying the rest of the code?
>>>>>>>> As said, for pointer type comb, we need to keep current behavior; for
>>>>>>>> other cases,
>>>>>>>> unconditionally convert to comb->type is the goal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is this version OK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -399,22 +400,20 @@ add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree type, tree elt,
>>>>>>> const widest_int &scale_in,
>>>>>>> if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
>>>>>>> return elt;
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> - return fold_convert (type1, elt);
>>>>>>> + return fold_convert (type, elt);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the conversion should already have been done. For non-pointer
>>>>>>> comb->type
>>>>>>> it has been converted to type by your patch. For pointer-type
>>>>>>> comb->type
>>>>>>> it should be either pointer type or ptrofftype ('type') already as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, can we do sth like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -384,6 +395,12 @@ add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree type, t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> widest_int scale = wide_int_ext_for_comb (scale_in, comb);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (! POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type))
>>>>>>> + elt = fold_convert (comb->type, elt);
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt))
>>>>>>> + || types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (elt), type1));
>>>>>> Hmm, this assert can be broken since we do STRIP_NOPS converting to
>>>>>> aff_tree. It's not compatible for signed and unsigned integer types.
>>>>>> Also, with this patch, we can even support elt of short type in a
>>>>>> unsigned long comb, though this is useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> if (scale == -1
>>>>>>> && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is clearly do the conversion at the start in a way the state
>>>>>>> of elt is more clear?
>>>>>> Yes, thanks. V3 patch attached (with gcc_assert removed). Is it ok
>>>>>> after bootstrap/test?
>>>>>
>>>>> - return fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type1,
>>>>> - expr, fold_convert (type1, elt));
>>>>> + return fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, expr, fold_convert (type,
>>>>> elt));
>>>>>
>>>>> folding not needed(?)
>>>>>
>>>>> - return fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type1,
>>>>> - fold_convert (type1, elt));
>>>>> + return fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type, fold_convert (type, elt));
>>>>>
>>>>> likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> - return fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, type1,
>>>>> - expr, fold_convert (type1, elt));
>>>>> + return fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, type, expr, fold_convert (type,
>>>>> elt));
>>>>>
>>>>> likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok with removing those and re-testing.
>>>> Hmm, I thought twice about the simplification, there are cases not
>>>> properly handled:
>>>>>>> + if (! POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type))
>>>>>>> + elt = fold_convert (comb->type, elt);
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt))
>>>>>>> + || types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (elt), type1));
>>>> This is not enough, for pointer type comb, if elt is the offset part,
>>>> we could return signed integer type elt without folding. Though this
>>>> shouldn't be an issue because it's always converted to ptr_offtype in
>>>> building pointer_plus, it's better not to create such expressions in
>>>> the first place. Check condition for unconditionally converting elt
>>>> should be improved as:
>>>>>>> + if (! POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type) || !POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE
>>>>>>> (elt)))
>>>>>>> + elt = fold_convert (comb->type, elt);
>>>
>>> Hmm, precisely as:
>>>>>>> + if (! POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type) || !POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE
>>>>>>> (elt)))
>>>>>>> + elt = fold_convert (type, elt);
>>
>> Yeah, that looks good to me.
>>
> Turned out it's more subtle than expected. Here is the latest version
> patch which I think makes aff_tree's type semantics more clear.
> Detailed comment is added in tree-affine.h describing its semantics.
>
> /* This aff_tree represents fully folded expression in a distributed way.
> For example, tree expression:
> (unsigned long)(A + ((sizetype)((integer)B + C) + (sizetype)D * 2) * 4)
> can be represented as aff_tree like:
> {
> type = unsigned long
> offset = 0
> elts[0] = A * 1
> elts[1] = B * 4
> elts[2] = C * 4
> elts[3] = D * 8
> }
> Note aff_tree has (root) type which is type of the original expression,
> elements can have their own types which are different to aff_tree's. In
> general, elements' type is type of folded sub-expression, and with NOP
> type conversion stripped. For example, elts[0] has type of A, which is
> type of STRIP_NOPS ((sizetype) A).
>
> Given aff_tree represents folded form of the original tree expression,
> it lacks ability to track whether the original form is of folded form
> or non-folded form. For example, both tree expressions:
> (unsigned)((int)A + (int)B)
> (unsigned)(int)A + (unsigned)(int)B
> have the same aff_tree repsentation. This imposes restrictions on this
> facility, i.e, we need to be conservative and always generate the latter
> form when converting aff_tree back to tree expression. This implies all
> elements need to be converted to aff_tree's type before converting.
>
> Always generating folded expr could lead to information loss because we
> can no longer know that (int)A + (int)B doesn't overflow. As a result,
> we should avoid using aff_tree in code generation directly. It should
> be used when we want to explore CSE opportunities by breaking most
> associations. It can be then used in code generation if there will be
> benefit.
>
> It's possible to represent POINTER_PLUS_EXPR in aff_tree, the aff_tree
> has pointer type accordingly. Such aff_tree is special in two ways:
> 1) It has a base element which is the original base pointer. Other
> elements belong to offset part of the original expression. When
> converting back to tree, other elements need to be converted to
> ptr_offtype, rather than pointer type.
> 2) In aff_tree computation, base element can be eliminated, it's the
> user's responsibility to convert the rest aff_tree to ptr_offtype.
> The rest aff_tree stands for offset part expression, no longer the
> POINTER_PLUS_EXPR. */
>
> As an real example, use of aff_tree in add_iv_candidate_for_use breaks
> above semantics. It needs to convert aff_tree to ptr_offtype after
> removing pointer element. Here I simply choose not to use aff_tree
> since it's unnecessary.
>
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is this version OK?
>
> Thanks,
> bin
> 2017-04-04 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/80153
> * tree-affine.h (struct aff_tree): Add comment.
> * tree-affine.c (add_elt_to_tree): Remove parameter TYPE, and use
> parameter COMB's type instead. Preserve elt's pointer type if it
> is the base pointer of a pointer type COMB.
> (aff_combination_to_tree): Update calls to add_elt_to_tree.
> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (alloc_iv): Pass in consistent types.
> (add_iv_candidate_for_use): Check and remove POINTER_PLUS_EXPR's
> base part directly, rather than through aff_tree.
> (get_computation_aff): Use utype directly for original candidate.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2017-04-04 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/80153
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr80153.c: New.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr80153.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr80153.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3eed578
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr80153.c
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/80153 */
+
+void check (int, int, int) __attribute__((noinline));
+void check (int c, int c2, int val)
+{
+ if (!val) {
+ __builtin_abort();
+ }
+}
+
+static const char *buf;
+static int l, i;
+
+void _fputs(const char *str) __attribute__((noinline));
+void _fputs(const char *str)
+{
+ buf = str;
+ i = 0;
+ l = __builtin_strlen(buf);
+}
+
+char _fgetc() __attribute__((noinline));
+char _fgetc()
+{
+ char val = buf[i];
+ i++;
+ if (i > l)
+ return -1;
+ else
+ return val;
+}
+
+static const char *string = "oops!\n";
+
+int main(void)
+{
+ int i;
+ int c;
+
+ _fputs(string);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < __builtin_strlen(string); i++) {
+ c = _fgetc();
+ check(c, string[i], c == string[i]);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-affine.c b/gcc/tree-affine.c
index e620eea..83c2c6b 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-affine.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-affine.c
@@ -370,66 +370,54 @@ tree_to_aff_combination (tree expr, tree type, aff_tree
*comb)
aff_combination_elt (comb, type, expr);
}
-/* Creates EXPR + ELT * SCALE in TYPE. EXPR is taken from affine
+/* Creates EXPR + ELT * SCALE in COMB's type. EXPR is taken from affine
combination COMB. */
static tree
-add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree type, tree elt, const widest_int &scale_in,
- aff_tree *comb ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
+add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree elt, const widest_int &scale_in,
+ aff_tree *comb)
{
enum tree_code code;
- tree type1 = type;
- if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
- type1 = sizetype;
-
+ /* Result type for this elt. */
+ tree type = POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type) ? sizetype : comb->type;
widest_int scale = wide_int_ext_for_comb (scale_in, comb);
- if (scale == -1
- && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
- {
- elt = convert_to_ptrofftype (elt);
- elt = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (elt), elt);
- scale = 1;
- }
+ /* Preserve elt's pointer type only if below conditions are satisfied:
+ 1) the result expression is of pointer type;
+ 2) scale is 1;
+ 3) expr is not of pointer type.
+ For all other cases, force it to result type. */
+ if (scale != 1
+ || !POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type)
+ || !POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt))
+ || (expr != NULL_TREE && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (expr))))
+ elt = fold_convert (type, elt);
if (scale == 1)
{
if (!expr)
- {
- if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
- return elt;
- else
- return fold_convert (type1, elt);
- }
-
+ return elt;
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (expr)))
return fold_build_pointer_plus (expr, elt);
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (elt)))
return fold_build_pointer_plus (elt, expr);
- return fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type1,
- expr, fold_convert (type1, elt));
+
+ return fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, expr, elt);
}
if (scale == -1)
{
if (!expr)
- return fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type1,
- fold_convert (type1, elt));
-
+ return fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type, elt);
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (expr)))
- {
- elt = convert_to_ptrofftype (elt);
- elt = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (elt), elt);
- return fold_build_pointer_plus (expr, elt);
- }
- return fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, type1,
- expr, fold_convert (type1, elt));
+ return fold_build_pointer_plus (expr,
+ fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type, elt));
+
+ return fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, type, expr, elt);
}
- elt = fold_convert (type1, elt);
if (!expr)
- return fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, type1, elt,
- wide_int_to_tree (type1, scale));
+ return fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, type, elt, wide_int_to_tree (type, scale));
if (wi::neg_p (scale))
{
@@ -439,15 +427,14 @@ add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree type, tree elt, const
widest_int &scale_in,
else
code = PLUS_EXPR;
- elt = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, type1, elt,
- wide_int_to_tree (type1, scale));
+ elt = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, type, elt, wide_int_to_tree (type, scale));
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (expr)))
{
if (code == MINUS_EXPR)
- elt = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type1, elt);
+ elt = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, type, elt);
return fold_build_pointer_plus (expr, elt);
}
- return fold_build2 (code, type1, expr, elt);
+ return fold_build2 (code, type, expr, elt);
}
/* Makes tree from the affine combination COMB. */
@@ -455,22 +442,18 @@ add_elt_to_tree (tree expr, tree type, tree elt, const
widest_int &scale_in,
tree
aff_combination_to_tree (aff_tree *comb)
{
- tree type = comb->type;
tree expr = NULL_TREE;
unsigned i;
widest_int off, sgn;
- tree type1 = type;
- if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
- type1 = sizetype;
+ tree type = POINTER_TYPE_P (comb->type) ? sizetype : comb->type;
gcc_assert (comb->n == MAX_AFF_ELTS || comb->rest == NULL_TREE);
for (i = 0; i < comb->n; i++)
- expr = add_elt_to_tree (expr, type, comb->elts[i].val, comb->elts[i].coef,
- comb);
+ expr = add_elt_to_tree (expr, comb->elts[i].val, comb->elts[i].coef, comb);
if (comb->rest)
- expr = add_elt_to_tree (expr, type, comb->rest, 1, comb);
+ expr = add_elt_to_tree (expr, comb->rest, 1, comb);
/* Ensure that we get x - 1, not x + (-1) or x + 0xff..f if x is
unsigned. */
@@ -484,8 +467,7 @@ aff_combination_to_tree (aff_tree *comb)
off = comb->offset;
sgn = 1;
}
- return add_elt_to_tree (expr, type, wide_int_to_tree (type1, off), sgn,
- comb);
+ return add_elt_to_tree (expr, wide_int_to_tree (type, off), sgn, comb);
}
/* Copies the tree elements of COMB to ensure that they are not shared. */
diff --git a/gcc/tree-affine.h b/gcc/tree-affine.h
index b8eb8cc..5b84aef 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-affine.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-affine.h
@@ -37,6 +37,52 @@ struct aff_comb_elt
widest_int coef;
};
+/* This aff_tree represents fully folded expression in a distributed way.
+ For example, tree expression:
+ (unsigned long)(A + ((sizetype)((integer)B + C) + (sizetype)D * 2) * 4)
+ can be represented as aff_tree like:
+ {
+ type = unsigned long
+ offset = 0
+ elts[0] = A * 1
+ elts[1] = B * 4
+ elts[2] = C * 4
+ elts[3] = D * 8
+ }
+ Note aff_tree has (root) type which is type of the original expression,
+ elements can have their own types which are different to aff_tree's. In
+ general, elements' type is type of folded sub-expression, and with NOP
+ type conversion stripped. For example, elts[0] has type of A, which is
+ type of STRIP_NOPS ((sizetype) A).
+
+ Given aff_tree represents folded form of the original tree expression,
+ it lacks ability to track whether the original form is of folded form
+ or non-folded form. For example, both tree expressions:
+ (unsigned)((int)A + (int)B)
+ (unsigned)(int)A + (unsigned)(int)B
+ have the same aff_tree repsentation. This imposes restrictions on this
+ facility, i.e, we need to be conservative and always generate the latter
+ form when converting aff_tree back to tree expression. This implies all
+ elements need to be converted to aff_tree's type before converting.
+
+ Always generating folded expr could lead to information loss because we
+ can no longer know that (int)A + (int)B doesn't overflow. As a result,
+ we should avoid using aff_tree in code generation directly. It should
+ be used when we want to explore CSE opportunities by breaking most
+ associations. It can be then used in code generation if there will be
+ benefit.
+
+ It's possible to represent POINTER_PLUS_EXPR in aff_tree, the aff_tree
+ has pointer type accordingly. Such aff_tree is special in two ways:
+ 1) It has a base element which is the original base pointer. Other
+ elements belong to offset part of the original expression. When
+ converting back to tree, other elements need to be converted to
+ ptr_offtype, rather than pointer type.
+ 2) In aff_tree computation, base element can be eliminated, it's the
+ user's responsibility to convert the rest aff_tree to ptr_offtype.
+ The rest aff_tree stands for offset part expression, no longer the
+ POINTER_PLUS_EXPR. */
+
struct aff_tree
{
/* Type of the result of the combination. */
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
index 8dc65881..666f885 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
@@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ alloc_iv (struct ivopts_data *data, tree base, tree step,
|| contain_complex_addr_expr (expr))
{
aff_tree comb;
- tree_to_aff_combination (expr, TREE_TYPE (base), &comb);
+ tree_to_aff_combination (expr, TREE_TYPE (expr), &comb);
base = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (base), aff_combination_to_tree (&comb));
}
@@ -3335,41 +3335,20 @@ add_iv_candidate_for_use (struct ivopts_data *data,
struct iv_use *use)
}
/* Record common candidate with base_object removed in base. */
- if (iv->base_object != NULL)
+ base = iv->base;
+ STRIP_NOPS (base);
+ if (iv->base_object != NULL && TREE_CODE (base) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
{
- unsigned i;
- aff_tree aff_base;
- tree step, base_object = iv->base_object;
+ tree step = iv->step;
- base = iv->base;
- step = iv->step;
- STRIP_NOPS (base);
STRIP_NOPS (step);
- STRIP_NOPS (base_object);
- tree_to_aff_combination (base, TREE_TYPE (base), &aff_base);
- for (i = 0; i < aff_base.n; i++)
- {
- if (aff_base.elts[i].coef != 1)
- continue;
-
- if (operand_equal_p (aff_base.elts[i].val, base_object, 0))
- break;
- }
- if (i < aff_base.n)
- {
- aff_combination_remove_elt (&aff_base, i);
- base = aff_combination_to_tree (&aff_base);
- basetype = TREE_TYPE (base);
- if (POINTER_TYPE_P (basetype))
- basetype = sizetype;
-
- step = fold_convert (basetype, step);
- record_common_cand (data, base, step, use);
- /* Also record common candidate with offset stripped. */
- base = strip_offset (base, &offset);
- if (offset)
- record_common_cand (data, base, step, use);
- }
+ base = TREE_OPERAND (base, 1);
+ step = fold_convert (sizetype, step);
+ record_common_cand (data, base, step, use);
+ /* Also record common candidate with offset stripped. */
+ base = strip_offset (base, &offset);
+ if (offset)
+ record_common_cand (data, base, step, use);
}
/* At last, add auto-incremental candidates. Make such variables
@@ -3787,6 +3766,12 @@ get_computation_aff (struct loop *loop,
overflows, as all the arithmetics will in the end be performed in UUTYPE
anyway. */
common_type = determine_common_wider_type (&ubase, &cbase);
+ /* We don't need to compute in UUTYPE if this is the original candidate,
+ and candidate/use have the same (pointer) type. */
+ if (ctype == utype && common_type == utype
+ && POINTER_TYPE_P (utype) && TYPE_UNSIGNED (utype)
+ && cand->pos == IP_ORIGINAL && cand->incremented_at == use->stmt)
+ uutype = utype;
/* use = ubase - ratio * cbase + ratio * var. */
tree_to_aff_combination (ubase, common_type, aff);
