On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:55:35AM +0000, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rainer, could you please help me double check that this solves the
>>>>>> issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> bin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gcc/testsuite
>>>>>> 2018-04-10 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PR testsuite/85190
>>>>>> * gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c: Adjust pointer for aligned access.
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c
>>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c
>>>>>> index 46d7a9e..15320ae 100644
>>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c
>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c
>>>>>> @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void f(short*p){
>>>>>> p=(short*)__builtin_assume_aligned(p,64);
>>>>>> - short*q=p+256;
>>>>>> + short*q=p+255;
>>>>>> for(;p!=q;++p,--q){
>>>>>> short t=*p;*p=*q;*q=t;
>>>>>
>>>>> This is UB then though, because p will never be equal to q.
>>>
>>> Hmm, though it's UB in this case, is it OK for niter analysis gives
>>> below results?
>>>
>>> Analyzing # of iterations of loop 1
>>> exit condition [126, + , 18446744073709551615] != 0
>>> bounds on difference of bases: -126 ... -126
>>> result:
>>> # of iterations 126, bounded by 126
>>>
>>> I don't really follow last piece of code in number_of_iterations_ne:
>>>
>>> /* Let nsd (step, size of mode) = d. If d does not divide c, the loop
>>> is infinite. Otherwise, the number of iterations is
>>> (inverse(s/d) * (c/d)) mod (size of mode/d). */
>>> bits = num_ending_zeros (s);
>>> bound = build_low_bits_mask (niter_type,
>>> (TYPE_PRECISION (niter_type)
>>> - tree_to_uhwi (bits)));
>>>
>>> d = fold_binary_to_constant (LSHIFT_EXPR, niter_type,
>>> build_int_cst (niter_type, 1), bits);
>>> s = fold_binary_to_constant (RSHIFT_EXPR, niter_type, s, bits);
>>>
>>> if (!exit_must_be_taken)
>>> {
>>> /* If we cannot assume that the exit is taken eventually, record the
>>> assumptions for divisibility of c. */
>>> assumption = fold_build2 (FLOOR_MOD_EXPR, niter_type, c, d);
>>> assumption = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
>>> assumption, build_int_cst (niter_type, 0));
>>> if (!integer_nonzerop (assumption))
>>> niter->assumptions = fold_build2 (TRUTH_AND_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
>>> niter->assumptions, assumption);
>>> }
>>>
>>> c = fold_build2 (EXACT_DIV_EXPR, niter_type, c, d);
>>> tmp = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, niter_type, c, inverse (s, bound));
>>> niter->niter = fold_build2 (BIT_AND_EXPR, niter_type, tmp, bound);
>>> return true;
>>>
>>> Though infinite niters is mentioned, I don't see it's handled?
>>
>> number_of_iterations_ne_max computes this it seems based on the
>> fact that pointer overflow is undefined. This means that 126 is
>> as good as any other number given the testcase is undefined...
>
> Okay, in this case, I simply removed the function with UB in the case.
> Is it OK?
OK.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> bin
>
> gcc/testsuite
> 2018-04-11 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>
> PR testsuite/85190
> * gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c: Remove function with undefined behavior.
>
>
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> bin
>>>> Sorry I already checked in, will try to correct it in another patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> bin
>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> void b(short*p){
>>>>>> p=(short*)__builtin_assume_aligned(p,64);
>>>>>> - short*q=p+256;
>>>>>> + short*q=p+255;
>>>>>> for(;p<q;++p,--q){
>>>>>> short t=*p;*p=*q;*q=t;
>>>>>
>>>>> This one is fine, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jakub
