On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 20 July 2016 at 11:34, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>> <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19 July 2016 at 11:04, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On July 18, 2016 11:05:58 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm
>>>>> <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 00:52 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19 July 2016 at 00:25, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > On July 18, 2016 8:28:15 PM GMT+02:00, Prasad Ghangal <
>>>>>>> > prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > On 15 July 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener <
>>>>>>> > > richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>>>> > > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > On 8 July 2016 at 13:13, Richard Biener <
>>>>>>> > > > > richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>>>> > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > On 6 July 2016 at 14:24, Richard Biener
>>>>>>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>>>> > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > On 30 June 2016 at 17:10, Richard Biener
>>>>>>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > On 29 June 2016 at 22:15, Richard Biener
>>>>>>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:00,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>>>>>> > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 June 2016 at 12:02, Prasad Ghangal
>>>>>>> > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried hacking pass manager to execute
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only given passes.
>>>>>>> > > For this I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > am adding new member as opt_pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *custom_pass_list to the
>>>>>>> > > function
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure to store passes need to execute
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and providing the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom_pass_list to execute_pass_list()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > function instead of
>>>>>>> > > all
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for test case like-
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > int a;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > void __GIMPLE (execute ("tree-ccp1", "tree
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -fre1")) foo()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bb_1:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a = 1 + a;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it will execute only given passes i.e. ccp1
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fre1 pass
>>>>>>> > > on the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > function
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for test case like -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > int a;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > void __GIMPLE (startwith ("tree-ccp1"))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > foo()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bb_1:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a = 1 + a;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it will act as a entry point to the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline and will
>>>>>>> > > execute passes
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > starting from given pass.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bike-shedding:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to have syntax for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > defining pass ranges
>>>>>>> > > to execute
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > for instance:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > void __GIMPLE(execute (pass_start :
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > pass_end))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > which would execute all the passes within
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > range [pass_start,
>>>>>>> > > pass_end],
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > which would be convenient if the range is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > large.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > But it would rely on a particular pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline, f.e.
>>>>>>> > > pass-start appearing before pass-end.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Currently control doesn't work 100% as it only
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > replaces
>>>>>>> > > all_optimizations but not lowering passes or early opts, nor IPA
>>>>>>> > > opts.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > Each pass needs GIMPLE in some specific form. So
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > I am letting
>>>>>>> > > lowering
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > and early opt passes to execute. I think we have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > to execute
>>>>>>> > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > passes (like cfg) anyway to represent GIMPLE into
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > proper form
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's true. Note that early opt passes only
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > optimize but
>>>>>>> > > we need
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > pass_build_ssa_passes at least (for into-SSA). For
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > proper
>>>>>>> > > unit-testing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > of GIMPLE passes we do need to guard off early opts
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > somehow
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > (I guess a simple if (flag_gimple && cfun
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > ->custom_pass_list)
>>>>>>> > > would do
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > that).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > Then there is of course the question about IPA
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > passes which I
>>>>>>> > > think is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > somewhat harder (one could always disable all IPA
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > passes
>>>>>>> > > manually
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > via flags of course or finally have a global
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > -fipa/no-ipa like
>>>>>>> > > most
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > other compilers).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Can we iterate through all ipa passes and do
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -fdisable-ipa-pass
>>>>>>> > > or
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -fenable-ipa-pass equivalent for each?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > We could do that, yes. But let's postpone this issue.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > I think
>>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > startwith is going to be most useful and rather than
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > constructing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > a pass list for it "native" support for it in the pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > manager is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > likely to produce better results (add a 'startwith'
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > member
>>>>>>> > > alongside
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > the pass list member and if it is set the pass manager
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > skips all
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > passes that do not match 'startwith' and once it
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > reaches it it
>>>>>>> > > clears
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > the field).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > In the future I hope we can get away from a static pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > list and
>>>>>>> > > more
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > towards rule-driven pass execution (we have all those
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > PROP_*
>>>>>>> > > stuff
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > already but it isn't really used for example). But
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > well, that
>>>>>>> > > would be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > a separate GSoC project ;)
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > IMHO startwith will provide everything needed for unit
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > -testing.
>>>>>>> > > We can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > add a flag on whether further passes should be executed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > or not
>>>>>>> > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > even a pass list like execute ("ccp1", "fre") can be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > implemented
>>>>>>> > > by
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > startwith ccp1 and then from there executing the rest
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > of the
>>>>>>> > > passes in the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > list and stopping at the end.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > As said, unit-testing should exercise a single pass if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > we can
>>>>>>> > > control
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > its input.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > In this patch I am skipping execution of passes until
>>>>>>> > > pass_startwith
>>>>>>> > > > > > > is found. Unlike previous build, now pass manager
>>>>>>> > > > > > > executes all
>>>>>>> > > passes
>>>>>>> > > > > > > in pipeline starting from pass_startwith instead of just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > sub
>>>>>>> > > passes.
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > That looks good. I wonder if
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > + if (startwith_p && cfun->startwith)
>>>>>>> > > > > > + {
>>>>>>> > > > > > + if (pass->name == cfun->pass_startwith->name
>>>>>>> > > > > > + || pass->name == "*clean_state")
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > need better be strcmp ()s though. Also the early
>>>>>>> > > > > > optimization
>>>>>>> > > pipeline
>>>>>>> > > > > > should be executed with startwith support as well.
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > This patch adds startwith support for early opt passes. But
>>>>>>> > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > starting from some passes (like asan0, optimized) in
>>>>>>> > > > > all_passes
>>>>>>> > > > > pipeline, it falils at verify_curr_properties in
>>>>>>> > > > > execute_one_pass
>>>>>>> > > ().
>>>>>>> > > > > I wonder if we need to update properties after skipping each
>>>>>>> > > > > pass
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > Yeah, it's not possible to start at arbitrary points with
>>>>>>> > > > skipping
>>>>>>> > > passes
>>>>>>> > > > that provide a required property. I suspect it's good enough
>>>>>>> > > > that
>>>>>>> > > we'll
>>>>>>> > > > ICE if that happens.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > I see you are working on the dump-file side a bit now. What is
>>>>>>> > > > still
>>>>>>> > > > missing after you got support for PHIs is parsing of SSA names.
>>>>>>> > > > Without this unit-testing will be difficult at best.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > I think what we need to do is simplify the job of the parser
>>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > make the syntax we use to print SSA names a bit different.
>>>>>>> > > > So rather than printing VAR_VERSION we need to choose a
>>>>>>> > > > letter that is not part of a valid identifier before VERSION,
>>>>>>> > > > like a dot '.'. Thus we'd have i.1 instead of i_1 and we'd
>>>>>>> > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > .2 instead of _2 for an anonymous SSA name. The advantage
>>>>>>> > > > for non-anonymous names is that we can properly re-use the
>>>>>>> > > > C frontends decl handling for declaring and looking up 'i'.
>>>>>>> > > > The disadvantage is that for anonymous SSA names this isn't
>>>>>>> > > > so easy which means we could choose to not support those
>>>>>>> > > > for the moment and require fake decls for them. In fact
>>>>>>> > > > into-SSA will do the correct thing if we just treat them as
>>>>>>> > > > decls,
>>>>>>> > > > thus continue to dump them as _VERSION.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > I am little confused here about parsing 'i.1' because lexer drops
>>>>>>> > > DOT
>>>>>>> > > token for syntax like NAME.NUMBER . Hence instead of 'i.1' parser
>>>>>>> > > receives 'i1'
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Are you sure? You should get three tokens, one for 'i', one for the
>>>>>>> > dot and
>>>>>>> > One for '1'. You'd lookup the first via the C frontend symbol
>>>>>>> > table only.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I was also expecting that. For syntax like 'a.b' (ie name.name)
>>>>>>> it gives proper 3 tokens but for syntax like 'a.1' it produces only
>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what I observed while debugging "int a.1;"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 1)
>>>>>>> $3 = {type = CPP_KEYWORD, id_kind = C_ID_NONE, keyword = RID_INT,
>>>>>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242114, value =
>>>>>>> 0x7ffff65c82d0}
>>>>>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 2)
>>>>>>> $4 = {type = CPP_NAME, id_kind = C_ID_ID, keyword = RID_MAX,
>>>>>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242240, value =
>>>>>>> 0x7ffff66d0b90}
>>>>>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 3)
>>>>>>> $5 = {type = CPP_NUMBER, id_kind = C_ID_NONE, keyword = RID_MAX,
>>>>>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242273, value =
>>>>>>> 0x7ffff66e0030}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is the number? I'm wondering if it's somehow been lexed as a
>>>>>>decimal ".1" i.e. if the "." is somehow being treated as part of the
>>>>>>CPP_NUMBER.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the token '.1' is treated as CPP_NUMBER
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, possible...
>>>>>
>>>>>>FWIW, I find hacking in calls to "inform" very useful for seeing what
>>>>>>each token is (assuming that caret printing isn't disabled).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (gdb) call inform ($3->location, "")
>>>>>> (gdb) call inform ($4->location, "")
>>>>>> (gdb) call inform ($5
>>>>>>->location, "")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>etc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, does it have to be '.' as the SSA_NAME separator? Could it be a
>>>>>>different character e.g. '@' or something else that's non-legal in C?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't have to be '.', but sth visually not too disturbing would be
>>>>> nice. If we don't go with '.' We can as well try to parse the SSA
>>>>> version from i_1, leaving the ambiguity with it being a valid C
>>>>> identifier.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As special characters are not valid in C, I am using 'a..1' as syntax
>>>> for ssa name. For parsing I am using
>>>> + lhs.value = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun,
>>>> + lookup_name (c_parser_peek_token
>>>> (parser)->value),
>>>> + NULL);
>>>> Now for passing ssa name into __PHI, how can we lookup for particular ssa
>>>> name.
>>>> Or is there other better method to do it?
>>>
>>> Note that with this you need to preserve SSA versions as used in the source
>>> (the 1 in a..1). If you can do that (see below) the way to lookup an SSA
>>> name
>>> is simply calling 'ssa_name (version)' with version being an integer with
>>> the
>>> version number.
>>>
>>> make_ssa_name will simply allocate the next available SSA version so
>>> you'll need to add an interface that allows you allocation of a specific
>>> SSA version. Like with sth similar to
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/tree-ssanames.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/tree-ssanames.c (revision 238512)
>>> +++ gcc/tree-ssanames.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@
>>> used without a preceding definition). */
>>>
>>> tree
>>> -make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *fn, tree var, gimple *stmt)
>>> +make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *fn, tree var, gimple *stmt, int version)
>>> {
>>> tree t;
>>> use_operand_p imm;
>>> @@ -265,8 +265,17 @@
>>> || TREE_CODE (var) == RESULT_DECL
>>> || (TYPE_P (var) && is_gimple_reg_type (var)));
>>>
>>> + if (version != 0)
>>> + {
>>> + t = make_node (SSA_NAME);
>>> + SSA_NAME_VERSION (t) = version;
>>> + vec_safe_grow_cleared (SSANAMES (fn), version + 1);
>>> + gcc_assert ((*SSANAMES (fn))[version] == NULL);
>>> + (*SSANAMES (fn))[version] = t;
>>> + ssa_name_nodes_created++;
>>> + }
>>> /* If our free list has an element, then use it. */
>>> - if (!vec_safe_is_empty (FREE_SSANAMES (fn)))
>>> + else if (!vec_safe_is_empty (FREE_SSANAMES (fn)))
>>> {
>>> t = FREE_SSANAMES (fn)->pop ();
>>> ssa_name_nodes_reused++;
>>> Index: gcc/tree-ssanames.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/tree-ssanames.h (revision 237253)
>>> +++ gcc/tree-ssanames.h (working copy)
>>> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
>>> extern void init_ssanames (struct function *, int);
>>> extern void fini_ssanames (struct function *);
>>> extern void ssanames_print_statistics (void);
>>> -extern tree make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree, gimple *);
>>> +extern tree make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree, gimple *, int);
>>> extern void release_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree);
>>> extern bool get_ptr_info_alignment (struct ptr_info_def *, unsigned int *,
>>> unsigned int *);
>>>
>>> where you can then do sth like
>>>
>>> ssaname = ssa_name (version);
>>> if (!ssaname)
>>> ssaname = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun, lookup_name (...), NULL, version);
>>>
>>> to either lookup an existing or allocate a new SSA name of the desired
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Just for some bike-shedding, I don't like using '..' too much ;)
>> Would it be a good idea to modify libcpp's lexer to recognize
>> identifier.number as a single token if -fgimple is enabled ?
>
> I don't think so. As said, we can retain the i_2 syntax as well where you
> then
> get a single token and to decide whether it is a SSA name do a lookup for
> 'i' first and if that succeeds, interpret _2 as a version suffix,
> otherwise use it
> as full variable name. Re-constructing the 1 from .1 or 17 from .17
> CPP_NUMBER
> is possible as well of course.
>
Sorry for the late response. I was little busy due to some family problem.
In this patch, I am parsing ssa names as described above. But the
problem is non ssa variable also gets renamed
for testcase :
void __GIMPLE () foo()
{
int a;
bb_2:
if (a > 4)
goto bb_3;
else
goto bb_4;
bb_3:
a_1 = 55;
goto bb_5;
bb_4:
a_2 = 99;
bb_5:
a_3 = __PHI (bb_3: a_1, bb_4: a_2);
a_4 = a_3 + 3;
return;
}
I am getting ssa dump as:
/* Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1744, cgraph_uid=0,
symbol_order=0)*/
void
foo ()
{
bb_2:
if (a_5 > 4)
goto bb_3;
else
goto bb_4;
bb_3:
a_1 = 55;
goto bb_5;
bb_4:
a_2 = 99;
a_3 = __PHI (bb_3: a_1, bb_4: a_2)
bb_5:
a_4 = a_3 + 3;
return;
}
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Prathamesh
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
index 1a55b9a..17c1eb5 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
@@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#include "gimple-pretty-print.h"
#include "tree-ssa.h"
#include "pass_manager.h"
+#include "tree-ssanames.h"
+#include "gimple-ssa.h"
/* We need to walk over decls with incomplete struct/union/enum types
after parsing the whole translation unit.
@@ -1666,7 +1668,7 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser *parser, bool fndef_ok,
location_t here = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->location;
bool gimple_body_p = false;
opt_pass *pass = NULL;
- bool startwith_p;
+ bool startwith_p = false;
if (static_assert_ok
&& c_parser_next_token_is_keyword (parser, RID_STATIC_ASSERT))
@@ -1723,7 +1725,6 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser *parser, bool fndef_ok,
if (kw_token->keyword == RID_GIMPLE)
{
gimple_body_p = true;
- startwith_p = false;
c_parser_consume_token (parser);
c_parser_gimple_pass_list (parser, &pass, &startwith_p);
c_parser_skip_until_found (parser, CPP_CLOSE_PAREN,
@@ -18145,7 +18146,7 @@ c_parser_parse_gimple_body (c_parser *parser)
location_t loc1 = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->location;
seq = NULL;
body = NULL;
-
+ init_tree_ssa (cfun);
return_p = c_parser_gimple_compound_statement (parser, &seq);
if (!return_p)
@@ -18173,7 +18174,6 @@ c_parser_parse_gimple_body (c_parser *parser)
cfun->curr_properties = PROP_gimple_any;
if (flag_gdebug)
debug_gimple_seq (seq);
- init_tree_ssa (cfun);
return;
}
@@ -18361,7 +18361,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_expression (c_parser *parser, gimple_seq *seq)
gcall *call_stmt;
/* Gimplify internal functions. */
- tree arg;
+ tree arg = NULL_TREE;
vec<tree> vargs = vNULL;
if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN))
@@ -18386,7 +18386,29 @@ c_parser_gimple_expression (c_parser *parser, gimple_seq *seq)
}
else
{
- arg = c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (parser).value;
+ /* Parse ssa names */
+ tree id;
+ char *var_name, *var_version, *token;
+ const char *ssa_token = IDENTIFIER_POINTER (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value);
+ token = new char [strlen (ssa_token)];
+ strcpy (token, ssa_token);
+ var_name = strtok (token, "_");
+ id = get_identifier (var_name);
+ if (lookup_name (id))
+ {
+ unsigned int version;
+ var_version = strtok (NULL, "_");
+ version = atoi (var_version);
+ if (var_version && version)
+ {
+ arg = NULL_TREE;
+ if (version < num_ssa_names)
+ arg = ssa_name (version);
+ if (!arg)
+ arg = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun, lookup_name (id), gimple_build_nop (), version);
+ c_parser_consume_token (parser);
+ }
+ }
vargs.safe_push (arg);
}
}
@@ -18481,7 +18503,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_binary_expression (c_parser *parser, enum tree_code *subcode)
sp--; \
} while (0)
stack[0].loc = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->location;
- stack[0].expr = c_parser_cast_expression (parser, NULL);
+ stack[0].expr = c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (parser);
stack[0].prec = PREC_NONE;
sp = 0;
enum c_parser_prec oprec;
@@ -18601,7 +18623,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_binary_expression (c_parser *parser, enum tree_code *subcode)
}
sp++;
stack[sp].loc = binary_loc;
- stack[sp].expr = c_parser_cast_expression (parser, NULL);
+ stack[sp].expr = c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (parser);
stack[sp].prec = oprec;
stack[sp].op = *subcode;
out:
@@ -18618,6 +18640,34 @@ static c_expr
c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (c_parser *parser)
{
struct c_expr ret, op;
+ /* Parse ssa names */
+ if (TREE_CODE (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value) == IDENTIFIER_NODE
+ && !lookup_name (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value))
+ {
+ tree id;
+ char *var_name, *var_version, *token;
+ const char *ssa_token = IDENTIFIER_POINTER (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value);
+ token = new char [strlen (ssa_token)];
+ strcpy (token, ssa_token);
+ var_name = strtok (token, "_");
+ id = get_identifier (var_name);
+ if (lookup_name (id))
+ {
+ var_version = strtok (NULL, "_");
+ unsigned int version;
+ version = atoi (var_version);
+ if (var_version && version)
+ {
+ ret.value = NULL_TREE;
+ if (version < num_ssa_names)
+ ret.value = ssa_name (version);
+ if (!ret.value)
+ ret.value = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun, lookup_name (id), gimple_build_nop (), version);
+ c_parser_consume_token (parser);
+ }
+ }
+ return ret;
+ }
location_t op_loc = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->location;
location_t exp_loc;
location_t finish;
@@ -18868,7 +18918,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_pass_list_params (c_parser *parser, opt_pass **pass)
if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_STRING))
{
- const char *name = TREE_STRING_POINTER(c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value);
+ const char *name = TREE_STRING_POINTER (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value);
c_parser_consume_token (parser);
new_pass = g->get_passes ()->get_pass_by_name (name);
diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
index 8842cec..288e983 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ replace_loop_annotate (void)
}
/* Lower internal PHI function from GIMPLE FE */
+
static void
lower_phi_internal_fn ()
{
@@ -356,8 +357,8 @@ lower_phi_internal_fn ()
gphi *phi_node;
gimple *stmt;
int len, capacity;
- /* After edge creation, handle __PHI function from GIMPLE FE */
+ /* After edge creation, handle __PHI function from GIMPLE FE */
FOR_EACH_BB_FN (bb, cfun)
{
for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
@@ -368,12 +369,10 @@ lower_phi_internal_fn ()
if (gimple_call_internal_p (stmt) && gimple_call_internal_fn (stmt) == IFN_PHI)
{
- gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
+ gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
int i;
lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
-
phi_node = create_phi_node (lhs, bb);
-
for (i = 0; i < gimple_call_num_args (stmt); ++i)
{
tree arg = gimple_call_arg (stmt, i);
@@ -7625,7 +7624,7 @@ dump_function_to_file (tree fndecl, FILE *file, int flags)
for (ix = 1; ix < num_ssa_names; ++ix)
{
tree name = ssa_name (ix);
- if (!virtual_operand_p (name))
+ if (name && !SSA_NAME_VAR (name))
{
fprintf (file, " ");
print_generic_expr (file, TREE_TYPE (name), flags);
diff --git a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
index 71150ac..b183b05 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c
@@ -1386,7 +1386,8 @@ rewrite_add_phi_arguments (basic_block bb)
/* If we have pre-existing PHI its args may be different
vars than existing vars */
argvar = gimple_phi_arg_def (phi, e->dest_idx);
- gcc_assert (!argvar || TREE_CODE (argvar) != SSA_NAME);
+ if (TREE_CODE (argvar) == SSA_NAME)
+ continue;
if (!argvar)
argvar = SSA_NAME_VAR (res);
currdef = get_reaching_def (argvar);
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.c b/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
index 91a8f97..c85eda2 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssanames.c
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ flush_ssaname_freelist (void)
used without a preceding definition). */
tree
-make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *fn, tree var, gimple *stmt)
+make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *fn, tree var, gimple *stmt, int version)
{
tree t;
use_operand_p imm;
@@ -265,8 +265,17 @@ make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *fn, tree var, gimple *stmt)
|| TREE_CODE (var) == RESULT_DECL
|| (TYPE_P (var) && is_gimple_reg_type (var)));
+ if (version != 0)
+ {
+ t = make_node (SSA_NAME);
+ SSA_NAME_VERSION (t) = version;
+ vec_safe_grow_cleared (SSANAMES (fn), version + 1);
+ gcc_assert ((*SSANAMES (fn))[version] == NULL);
+ (*SSANAMES (fn))[version] = t;
+ ssa_name_nodes_created++;
+ }
/* If our free list has an element, then use it. */
- if (!vec_safe_is_empty (FREE_SSANAMES (fn)))
+ else if (!vec_safe_is_empty (FREE_SSANAMES (fn)))
{
t = FREE_SSANAMES (fn)->pop ();
ssa_name_nodes_reused++;
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.h b/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
index c81b1a1..0034ae0 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ extern bool ssa_name_has_boolean_range (tree);
extern void init_ssanames (struct function *, int);
extern void fini_ssanames (struct function *);
extern void ssanames_print_statistics (void);
-extern tree make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree, gimple *);
+extern tree make_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree, gimple *, int version = 0);
extern void release_ssa_name_fn (struct function *, tree);
extern bool get_ptr_info_alignment (struct ptr_info_def *, unsigned int *,
unsigned int *);
