On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:48 AM Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Richard,
> > >
> > > > On Mar 4, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> It looks like DOM fails to visit stmts generated by simplification.
> > > >> Can you open a bug report with a testcase?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem is, It took me quite some time in order to come up with a
> > > >> small and independent testcase for this problem,
> > > >> a little bit change made the error disappear.
> > > >>
> > > >> do you have any suggestion on this? or can you give me some hint on
> > > >> how to fix this in DOM? then I can try the fix on my side?
> > > >
> > > > I remember running into similar issues in the past where I tried to
> > > > extract temporary nonnull ranges from divisions.
> > > > I have there
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1436,11 +1436,16 @@ dom_opt_dom_walker::before_dom_children
> > > > m_avail_exprs_stack->pop_to_marker ();
> > > >
> > > > edge taken_edge = NULL;
> > > > - for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
> > > > - {
> > > > - evrp_range_analyzer.record_ranges_from_stmt (gsi_stmt (gsi),
> > > > false);
> > > > - taken_edge = this->optimize_stmt (bb, gsi);
> > > > - }
> > > > + gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb);
> > > > + if (!gsi_end_p (gsi))
> > > > + while (1)
> > > > + {
> > > > + evrp_range_analyzer.record_def_ranges_from_stmt (gsi_stmt
> > > > (gsi), false);
> > > > + taken_edge = this->optimize_stmt (bb, &gsi);
> > > > + if (gsi_end_p (gsi))
> > > > + break;
> > > > + evrp_range_analyzer.record_use_ranges_from_stmt (gsi_stmt
> > > > (gsi));
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > /* Now prepare to process dominated blocks. */
> > > > record_edge_info (bb);
> > > >
> > > > OTOH the issue in your case is that fold emits new stmts before gsi but
> > > > the
> > > > above loop will never look at them. See tree-ssa-forwprop.c for code
> > > > how
> > > > to deal with this (setting a pass-local flag on stmts visited and
> > > > walking back
> > > > to unvisited, newly inserted ones). The fold_stmt interface could in
> > > > theory
> > > > also be extended to insert new stmts on a sequence passed to it so the
> > > > caller would be responsible for inserting them into the IL and could
> > > > then
> > > > more easily revisit them (but that's a bigger task).
> > > >
> > > > So, does the following help?
> > >
> > > Yes, this change fixed the error in my side, now, in the dumped file for
> > > pass dom3:
> > >
> > > ====
> > > Visiting statement:
> > > i_49 = _98 > 0 ? k_105 : 0;
> > > Meeting
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > and
> > > [0, 0]
> > > to
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > Intersecting
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > and
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > to
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > Optimizing statement i_49 = _98 > 0 ? k_105 : 0;
> > > Replaced 'k_105' with variable '_98'
> > > gimple_simplified to _152 = MAX_EXPR <_98, 0>;
> > > i_49 = _152;
> >
> > Ah, that looks interesting. From this detail we might be
> > able to derive a testcase as well - a GIMPLE one
> > eventually because DOM runs quite late. It's also interesting
> > to see the inefficient code here (the extra copy), probably
> > some known issue with match-and-simplify, I'd have to check.
> >
> > > Folded to: i_49 = _152;
> > > LKUP STMT i_49 = _152
> > > ==== ASGN i_49 = _152
> > >
> > > Visiting statement:
> > > _152 = MAX_EXPR <_98, 0>;
> > >
> > > Visiting statement:
> > > i_49 = _152;
> > > Intersecting
> > > [0, 65535] EQUIVALENCES: { _152 } (1 elements)
> > > and
> > > [0, 65535]
> > > to
> > > [0, 65535] EQUIVALENCES: { _152 } (1 elements)
> > > ====
> > >
> > > We can clearly see from the above, all the new stmts generated by fold
> > > are visited now.
> >
> > We can also see that DOMs optimize_stmt code is not executed on the first
> > stmt
> > of the folding result (the MAX_EXPR), so the fix can be probably
> > amended/simplified
> > with that in mind.
> >
> > > it is also confirmed that the runtime error caused by this bug was gone
> > > with this fix.
> > >
> > > So, what’s the next step for this issue?
> > >
> > > will you commit this fix to gcc9 and gcc8 (we need it in gcc8)?
> >
> > I'll see to carve out some cycles trying to find a testcase and amend
> > the fix a bit
> > and will take care of testing/submitting the fix. Thanks for testing
> > that it works
> > for your case.
>
> I filed PR89595 with a testcase.
So fixing it properly with also re-optimize_stmt those stmts so we'd CSE
the MAX_EXPR introduced by folding makes it somewhat ugly.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
Any ideas how to make it less so? I can split out making optimize_stmt
take a gsi * btw, in case that's a more obvious change and it makes the
patch a little smaller.
Richard.
2019-03-05 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/89595
* tree-ssa-dom.c (dom_opt_dom_walker::optimize_stmt): Take
stmt iterator as reference, take boolean output parameter to
indicate whether the stmt was removed and thus the iterator
already advanced.
(dom_opt_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Re-iterate over
stmts created by folding.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr89595.c: New testcase.
fix-pr89595
Description: Binary data
