On 11/1/23 05:29, Giuseppe Tagliavini via Gcc wrote:
I found an unexpected issue working with an experimental target (available here: https://github.com/EEESlab/tricore-gcc), but I was able to reproduce it on mainstream architectures. For the sake of clarity and reproducibility, I always refer to upstream code in the rest of the discussion. Consider this simple test: #include <stdio.h> int f(unsigned int a) { unsigned int res = 8*sizeof(unsigned int) - __builtin_clz(a); if(res>0) printf("test passed\n"); return res-1; } I tested this code on GCC 9 and GCC 11 branches, obtaining the expected result from GCC 9 and the wrong one from GCC 11. In GCC 11 and newer versions, the condition check is removed by a gimple-level optimization (I will provide details later), and the printf is always invoked at the assembly level with no branch. According to the GCC manual, __builtin_clz "returns the number of leading 0-bits in x, starting at the most significant bit position. If x is 0, the result is undefined." However, it is possible to define a CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO in the architecture backend to specify a defined behavior for this case. For instance, this has been done for SPARC and AARCH64 architectures. Compiling my test with SPARC GCC 13.2.0 with the -O3 flag on CompilerExplorer I got this assembly: .LC0: .asciz "test" f: save %sp, -96, %sp call __clzsi2, 0 mov %i0, %o0 mov %o0, %i0 sethi %hi(.LC0), %o0 call printf, 0 or %o0, %lo(.LC0), %o0 mov 31, %g1 return %i7+8 sub %g1, %o0, %o0 After some investigation, I found this optimization derives from the results of the value range propagation analysis: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/gimple-range-op.cc#L917 In this code, I do not understand why CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is verified only if the function call is tagged as internal. A gimple call is tagged as internal at creation time only when there is no associated function declaration (see https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/gimple.cc#L371), which is not the case for the builtins. From my point of view, this condition prevents the computation of the correct upper bound for this case, resulting in a wrong result from the VRP analysis. Before considering this behavior as a bug, I prefer to ask the community to understand if there is any aspect I have missed in my reasoning.
It would help if you included the debugging dumps. Jeff
