On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to bring PR 63475 to the attention of RTL maintainers. The
>>>> problem in the referred PR exposed the RTL infrastructure problem,
>>>> where VALUE expressions are leaked instead of MEM expresions into
>>>> various parts of aliasing-detecting support functions.
>>>>
>>>> As an example, please consider following patch for base_alias_check:
>>>>
>>>> --cut here--
>>>> Index: alias.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- alias.c (revision 216025)
>>>> +++ alias.c (working copy)
>>>> @@ -1824,6 +1824,13 @@ base_alias_check (rtx x, rtx x_base, rtx y, rtx
>>>> y_
>>>> if (rtx_equal_p (x_base, y_base))
>>>> return 1;
>>>>
>>>> + if (GET_CODE (x) == VALUE || GET_CODE (y) == VALUE)
>>>> + {
>>>> + debug_rtx (x);
>>>> + debug_rtx (y);
>>>> + gcc_unreachable ();
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> /* The base addresses are different expressions. If they are not
>>>> accessed
>>>> via AND, there is no conflict. We can bring knowledge of object
>>>> alignment into play here. For example, on alpha, "char a, b;"
>>>> can
>>>
>>>
>>> But when base_alias_check returns, we call memrefs_conflict_p which does
>>> know how to dig down into a VALUE expression.
>>
>>
>> IIRC, the problem was that base_alias_check returned 0 due to:
>>
>> /* Differing symbols not accessed via AND never alias. */
>> if (GET_CODE (x_base) != ADDRESS && GET_CODE (y_base) != ADDRESS)
>> return 0;
>>
>> so, the calling code never reached memrefs_conflict_p down the stream.
>
> Right. And my question is what happens if we aren't as aggressive here.
> What happens if before this check we return nonzero if X or Y is a VALUE?
> Do we then get into memrefs_conflict_p and does it do the right thing?
Following patch just after AND detection in base_alias_check fixes the
testcase from PR:
--cut here--
Index: alias.c
===================================================================
--- alias.c (revision 216100)
+++ alias.c (working copy)
@@ -1842,6 +1842,8 @@ base_alias_check (rtx x, rtx x_base, rtx y, rtx y_
|| (int) GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (x_mode) < -INTVAL (XEXP (y, 1))))
return 1;
+ return 1;
+
/* Differing symbols not accessed via AND never alias. */
if (GET_CODE (x_base) != ADDRESS && GET_CODE (y_base) != ADDRESS)
return 0;
--cut here--
I have started a bootstrap on alpha native with this patch (it will
take a day or so) and will report back findings
The results with unpatched gcc are at [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-10/msg01151.html
Uros.
