https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97009
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I am about to test this patch. I think this should be P1 and I would really
like to get this fix to GCC 10.3. Sorry for getting to this so late.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index d177f1ba11c..8dfc923ed7e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-sra.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c
@@ -2723,6 +2723,19 @@ budget_for_propagation_access (tree decl)
return true;
}
+/* Return true if ACC or any of its subaccesses has grp_child set. */
+
+static bool
+access_or_its_child_written (struct access *acc)
+{
+ if (acc->grp_write)
+ return true;
+ for (struct access *sub = acc->first_child; sub; sub = sub->next_sibling)
+ if (access_or_its_child_written (sub))
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
/* Propagate subaccesses and grp_write flags of RACC across an assignment link
to LACC. Enqueue sub-accesses as necessary so that the write flag is
propagated transitively. Return true if anything changed. Additionally,
if
@@ -2836,7 +2849,7 @@ propagate_subaccesses_from_rhs (struct access *lacc,
struct access *racc)
if (rchild->grp_unscalarizable_region
|| !budget_for_propagation_access (lacc->base))
{
- if (rchild->grp_write && !lacc->grp_write)
+ if (!lacc->grp_write && access_or_its_child_written (rchild))
{
ret = true;
subtree_mark_written_and_rhs_enqueue (lacc);
