The check whether two blocks are in the same irreducible region and thus post-dominance checks being unreliable was incomplete since an irreducible region can contain reducible sub-regions but if one block is in the irreducible part and one not the check still doesn't work as expected.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed. 2021-06-22 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> PR tree-optimization/101151 * tree-ssa-sink.c (statement_sink_location): Expand irreducible region check. * gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c: New testcase. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c | 9 ++++++++- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..15c9a7b7f57 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr101151.c @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ + +int a, *b = &a, c, d; +int main() { + *b; + if (a) { + L1: + a = 0; + L2: + if (d) { + while (b) + ; + goto L1; + } + } + if (c) + goto L2; + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c index d252cbb5c51..92f444ec1c8 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c @@ -398,7 +398,14 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block frombb, && dominated_by_p (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, commondom, bb) /* If the blocks are possibly within the same irreducible cycle the above check breaks down. */ - && !(bb->flags & commondom->flags & BB_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP)) + && !((bb->flags & commondom->flags & BB_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP) + && bb->loop_father == commondom->loop_father) + && !((commondom->flags & BB_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP) + && flow_loop_nested_p (commondom->loop_father, + bb->loop_father)) + && !((bb->flags & BB_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP) + && flow_loop_nested_p (bb->loop_father, + commondom->loop_father))) continue; bb = EDGE_PRED (bb, PHI_ARG_INDEX_FROM_USE (use_p))->src; } -- 2.26.2