https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83221
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2017-11-30
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The problem is that the testcase contains more than 32768 basic blocks.
One way to fix it is:
2017-11-30 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/83221
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (sort_by_operand_rank): Shift bb_rank
down by 16.
(init_reassoc): Formatting fix.
--- gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c.jj 2017-10-28 09:00:48.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c 2017-11-30 16:07:47.220334364 +0100
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ sort_by_operand_rank (const void *pa, co
return -1;
/* If neither is, compare bb_rank. */
if (bb_rank[bbb->index] != bb_rank[bba->index])
- return bb_rank[bbb->index] - bb_rank[bba->index];
+ return (bb_rank[bbb->index] >> 16) - (bb_rank[bba->index] >> 16);
}
bool da = reassoc_stmt_dominates_stmt_p (stmta, stmtb);
@@ -6131,7 +6131,7 @@ init_reassoc (void)
/* Set up rank for each BB */
for (i = 0; i < n_basic_blocks_for_fn (cfun) - NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS; i++)
- bb_rank[bbs[i]] = ++rank << 16;
+ bb_rank[bbs[i]] = ++rank << 16;
free (bbs);
calculate_dominance_info (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS);
Another possibility is to store bb_rank unshifted and shift only when using
bb_rank
except for this sort_by_operand_rank spot.
Perhaps the best fix is to change the types of all the ranks from unsigned int
(used in some spots) and long (in other spots) to uint64_t, on 64-bit hosts it
shouldn't make much difference if we say reorder:
struct operand_entry
{
unsigned int rank;
unsigned int id;
tree op;
unsigned int count;
gimple *stmt_to_insert;
};
to
struct operand_entry
{
unsigned int count;
unsigned int id;
tree op;
uint64_t rank;
gimple *stmt_to_insert;
};
Guess
static int
compare_repeat_factors (const void *x1, const void *x2)
{
const repeat_factor *rf1 = (const repeat_factor *) x1;
const repeat_factor *rf2 = (const repeat_factor *) x2;
if (rf1->count != rf2->count)
return rf1->count - rf2->count;
return rf2->rank - rf1->rank;
}
should be changed in any case to do:
if (rf1->rank != rf2->rank)
return rf2->rank > rf1->rank ? 1 : -1;
return 0;
and likely also the count case.
Richard, thoughts on this?
