https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109184
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Testcase with just the essential stuff.
static int g_1731[7] = { 42, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 42 };
void __attribute__((noipa)) foo ()
{
int l_1930[5] = { 0, };
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
for (int j = 4; (j >= 1); j -= 1)
#pragma GCC unroll 0
for (int k = 0; (k <= 4); k += 1)
g_1731[(j + 1)] = --l_1930[k];
}
int main()
{
foo ();
if (g_1731[0] != 42
|| g_1731[1] != 0 || g_1731[2] != -60 || g_1731[3] != -59
|| g_1731[4] != -58 || g_1731[5] != -57
|| g_1731[6] != 42)
__builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
The innermost loop body then is
<bb 3> [local count: 894749066]:
# k_26 = PHI <k_17(11), 0(5)>
# ivtmp_23 = PHI <ivtmp_21(11), 5(5)>
_1 = l_1930[k_26];
_2 = _1 + -1;
l_1930[k_26] = _2;
g_1731[_6] = _2;
k_17 = k_26 + 1;
ivtmp_21 = ivtmp_23 - 1;
if (ivtmp_21 != 0)
one should note that for data dependence analysis we'd usually need to
treat scalars (in this case SSA names) as arrays of the size of the
whole nest iteration domain and the dependences would be between
statements, not reads/writes. So the above is
_1 = l_1930[k_26];
_2[i] = _1 + -1;
l_1930[k_26] = _2[i];
g_1731[_6] = _2[i];
then and when we interchange the loop we suddenly need two different
_2[] elements and when eliminating _2[] there's a dependence between
the l_1930 store and the implied load from a different iteration.
Note that when l_1930[k] wouldn't be stored to g_1731[j+1] the
interchange would be of course valid and we do not want to break
that case.
