On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/14/21 4:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > The same issue that arises in PR100934 can happen in the backward
> > > threader now (Aldy?) - we eventually run into mark_irreducible_loops
> > > for non-FSM thread paths checking for paths crossing irreducible
> > > region boundaries.
> >
> > I haven't been following the above PR, so I may be missing something, but it
> > seems like you would need to twiddle all users of the path registry, not
> > just
> > the backwards threader.
>
> Yes, VRP already uses LOOPS_NORMAL, I fixed DOM with the patch for
> PR100934. That leaves the backwards threader, so after this change
> all consumers should be fixed.
>
> The question was more like if we'd ever run into the code in
> mark_threaded_blocks that reads
>
> /* Look for jump threading paths which cross multiple loop headers.
>
> The code to thread through loop headers will change the CFG in ways
> that invalidate the cached loop iteration information. So we must
> detect that case and wipe the cached information. */
> EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (tmp, 0, i, bi)
> ...
>
> we're definitely executing mark_threaded_blocks but we've executed
> and pruned all FSM threading paths before.
>
> I suppose I should simply place the assert there and see what happens
> when I don't fixup the backwards threader ...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
index a86302be18e..1155b3b9a8f 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
@@ -2122,6 +2122,7 @@ jump_thread_path_registry::mark_threaded_blocks
(bitmap threaded_blocks)
{
if (e->aux)
{
+ gcc_assert (loops_state_satisfies_p
(LOOPS_HAVE_MARKED_IRREDUCIBLE_REGIONS));
vec<jump_thread_edge *> *path = THREAD_PATH (e);
for (unsigned int i = 0, crossed_headers = 0;
passes bootstrap and regtest, so I suppose the backwards threader
doesn't need the initialization right now.
I'll push this instead.
Richard.
