On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:06:55PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> For EH we should set it to profile_probability::zero () because we know it
>> is unlikely
>> path. I will take a look.
>
> With the
>
> --- gcc/cfghooks.c.jj 2017-10-13 18:27:12.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/cfghooks.c 2017-10-13 19:15:11.444650533 +0200
> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ verify_flow_info (void)
> err = 1;
> }
> if (profile_status_for_fn (cfun) >= PROFILE_GUESSED
> + && (e->flags & (EDGE_EH | EDGE_ABNORMAL | EDGE_FAKE)) == 0
> && !e->probability.initialized_p ())
> {
> error ("Uninitialized probability of edge %i->%i",
> e->src->index,
>
> hack x86_64-linux and i686-linux bootstrapped fine, but I see still many
> graphite related regressions:
>
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: error:
> Uninitialized probability of edge 41->17
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: error:
> Uninitialized probability of edge 44->41
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: error:
> Uninitialized probability of edge 36->21
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: error:
> Uninitialized probability of edge 29->36
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: error:
> Uninitialized probability of edge 32->29
> during GIMPLE pass: graphite
> dump file: id-16.c.150t.graphite
> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-16.c:15:1: internal
> compiler error: verify_flow_info failed
> 0xafac1a verify_flow_info()
> ../../gcc/cfghooks.c:268
> 0xf2a624 checking_verify_flow_info
> ../../gcc/cfghooks.h:198
> 0xf2a624 cleanup_tree_cfg_noloop
> ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:901
> 0xf2a624 cleanup_tree_cfg()
> ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:952
> 0x162df85 graphite_transform_loops()
> ../../gcc/graphite.c:422
> 0x162f0c0 graphite_transforms
> ../../gcc/graphite.c:447
> 0x162f0c0 execute
> ../../gcc/graphite.c:524
>
> So probably graphite needs to be tweaked for this too.
graphite does
if (changed)
{
cleanup_tree_cfg ();
profile_status_for_fn (cfun) = PROFILE_ABSENT;
release_recorded_exits (cfun);
tree_estimate_probability (false);
so it runs into CFG cleanup running before it properly resets counts.
I wonder if we shouldn't simply get rid of the explicit checking calls in
cfg cleanup... or if the profile checking should happen somewhere
else.
I'd also appreciate a better way for doing the above. Shouldn't we
end up with a proper initialization on all edges as we just split
existing ones and use create_empty_if_region_on_edge and
create_empty_loop_on_edge?
Ah, those use make_edge as well.
The tree_estimate_probablility call above should be ideally
replaced with sth like "propagate-SESE-entry-probability".
Richard.
> Jakub
