Hi Tom!
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:15:24 +0200, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
> with the openacc test-case in attached patch, I ran into an assert here:
Using your test case, in my build with
"--enable-checking=yes,df,fold,rtl", I already earlier run into an ICE...
> static void
> nvptx_propagate_unified (rtx_insn *unified)
> {
> rtx_insn *probe = unified;
> rtx cond_reg = SET_DEST (PATTERN (unified));
> rtx pat;
>
> /* Find the comparison. (We could skip this and simply scan to he
> blocks' terminating branch, if we didn't care for self
> checking.) */
> for (;;)
> {
> probe = NEXT_INSN (probe);
> pat = PATTERN (probe);
... here:
[...]/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt-2.c:19:9:
internal compiler error: RTL check: expected elt 3 type 'e' or 'u', have '0'
(rtx note) in PATTERN, at rtl.h:1440
Breakpoint 2, internal_error (gmsgid=0x10cc840 "RTL check: expected elt %d
type '%c' or '%c', have '%c' (rtx %s) in %s, at %s:%d") at
[...]/gcc/diagnostic.c:1251
1251 {
(gdb) bt
#0 internal_error (gmsgid=0x10cc840 "RTL check: expected elt %d type '%c'
or '%c', have '%c' (rtx %s) in %s, at %s:%d") at [...]/gcc/diagnostic.c:1251
#1 0x00000000009bd2c7 in rtl_check_failed_type2 (r=0x7ffff688cd40,
n=<optimized out>, c1=<optimized out>, c2=<optimized out>, file=<optimized
out>, line=<optimized out>, func=0x106ac48
<_ZZ7PATTERNP7rtx_defE12__FUNCTION__> "PATTERN") at [...]/gcc/rtl.c:802
#2 0x0000000000529ef3 in PATTERN (insn=<optimized out>) at
[...]/gcc/rtl.h:1440
#3 0x00000000005e5a2b in PATTERN (insn=<optimized out>) at
[...]/gcc/rtl.h:1440
#4 0x0000000000d08b96 in nvptx_propagate_unified (unified=0x7ffff688ccc0)
at [...]/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c:2299
#5 0x0000000000d093e7 in nvptx_split_blocks (map=map@entry=0x7fffffffcc40)
at [...]/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c:2428
#6 0x0000000000d0d08b in nvptx_reorg () at
[...]/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c:3840
#7 0x00000000009bb0ea in (anonymous
namespace)::pass_machine_reorg::execute (this=<optimized out>) at
[...]/gcc/reorg.c:3952
[...]
(gdb) frame 4
#4 0x0000000000d08b96 in nvptx_propagate_unified (unified=0x7ffff688ccc0)
at [...]/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c:2299
2299 pat = PATTERN (probe);
(gdb) print probe
$1 = (rtx_insn *) 0x7ffff688cd40
(gdb) call debug_rtx(probe)
(note 56 54 57 3 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
>
> if (GET_CODE (pat) == SET
> && GET_RTX_CLASS (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat))) == RTX_COMPARE
> && XEXP (SET_SRC (pat), 0) == cond_reg)
> break;
> gcc_assert (NONJUMP_INSN_P (probe));
> }
> ...
>
> The assert happens when processing insn 56:
> ...
> (insn 54 53 56 3 (set (reg:SI 47 [ _71 ])
> (unspec:SI [
> (reg:SI 36 [ _58 ])
> ] UNSPEC_BR_UNIFIED)) 108 {cond_uni}
> (nil))
> (note 56 54 57 3 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (insn 57 56 58 3 (set (reg:BI 68)
> (gt:BI (reg:SI 47 [ _71 ])
> (const_int 1 [0x1]))) 99 {*cmpsi}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 47 [ _71 ])
> (nil)))
> ...
> The insn 56 was originally a '(set (reg x) (const_int 1))', but that one
> has been combined into insn 57 and replaced with a 'NOTE_INSN_DELETED'.
> So it seems reasonable for the loop to skip over this note.
>
> Fixed by making the assert condition less strict.
>
> Build on x86_64 with nvptx accelerator.
>
> Tested test-case included in the patch.
>
> Committed as trivial.
> --- a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
> @@ -2300,7 +2300,7 @@ nvptx_propagate_unified (rtx_insn *unified)
> && GET_RTX_CLASS (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat))) == RTX_COMPARE
> && XEXP (SET_SRC (pat), 0) == cond_reg)
> break;
> - gcc_assert (NONJUMP_INSN_P (probe));
> + gcc_assert (NONJUMP_INSN_P (probe) || !INSN_P (probe));
> }
> rtx pred_reg = SET_DEST (pat);
These problems (both yours and mine) do not reproduce on trunk, right?
But I suppose these are still a latent, just waiting for a different test
case? Maybe this is a case to write an RTL-level test case? (Unless the
fix is deemed trivial enough to warrent spending time on this.)
Anyway, I don't know a lot about RTL, but the following patch does cure
this test case (now running other testing). Would you please check that,
and also whether nvptx_propagate_unified then still works as expected?
Is this patch OK (both for gomp-4_0-branch, and also for trunk?), or
should this rather use something like:
-if (!INSN_P (probe))
+if (NOTE_P (probe) && NOTE_KIND (probe) == NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
continue;
..., or something yet different?
--- gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
+++ gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.c
@@ -2286,7 +2286,7 @@ nvptx_propagate_unified (rtx_insn *unified)
{
rtx_insn *probe = unified;
rtx cond_reg = SET_DEST (PATTERN (unified));
- rtx pat;
+ rtx pat = NULL_RTX;
/* Find the comparison. (We could skip this and simply scan to he
blocks' terminating branch, if we didn't care for self
@@ -2294,14 +2294,17 @@ nvptx_propagate_unified (rtx_insn *unified)
for (;;)
{
probe = NEXT_INSN (probe);
+ if (!INSN_P (probe))
+ continue;
pat = PATTERN (probe);
if (GET_CODE (pat) == SET
&& GET_RTX_CLASS (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat))) == RTX_COMPARE
&& XEXP (SET_SRC (pat), 0) == cond_reg)
break;
- gcc_assert (NONJUMP_INSN_P (probe) || !INSN_P (probe));
+ gcc_assert (NONJUMP_INSN_P (probe));
}
+ gcc_assert (pat != NULL_RTX);
rtx pred_reg = SET_DEST (pat);
/* Find the branch. */
Grüße
Thomas
