> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here's v2 of the patch with Jakub's suggestions incorporated. Bootstrapped
>>> and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for
>>> trunk?
>>>
>>> Eventually this should be backported to all active releases as well.
>>> Ok for that after a week or so of burn-in? (And after 7.2, I imagine.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> [gcc]
>>>
>>> 2017-08-03 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> PR tree-optimization/81503
>>> * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (replace_mult_candidate): Ensure
>>> folded constant fits in the target type.
>>>
>>> [gcc/testsuite]
>>>
>>> 2017-08-03 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> PR tree-optimization/81503
>>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81503.c: New file.
>>>
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (revision 250791)
>>> +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -2074,6 +2074,10 @@ replace_mult_candidate (slsr_cand_t c, tree basis_
>>> {
>>> tree target_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (c->cand_stmt));
>>> enum tree_code cand_code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt);
>>> + unsigned int prec = TYPE_PRECISION (target_type);
>>> + tree maxval = (POINTER_TYPE_P (target_type)
>>> + ? TYPE_MAX_VALUE (sizetype)
>>> + : TYPE_MAX_VALUE (target_type));
>>>
>>> /* It is highly unlikely, but possible, that the resulting
>>> bump doesn't fit in a HWI. Abandon the replacement
>>> @@ -2082,6 +2086,17 @@ replace_mult_candidate (slsr_cand_t c, tree basis_
>>> types but allows for safe negation without twisted logic. */
>>> if (wi::fits_shwi_p (bump)
>>> && bump.to_shwi () != HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN
>>> + /* It is more likely that the bump doesn't fit in the target
>>> + type, so check whether constraining it to that type changes
>>> + the value. For a signed type, the value mustn't change.
>>> + For an unsigned type, the value may only change to a
>>> + congruent value (for negative bumps). */
>>> + && (TYPE_UNSIGNED (target_type)
>>> + ? wi::eq_p (wi::neg_p (bump)
>>> + ? bump + wi::to_widest (maxval) + 1
>>> + : bump,
>>> + wi::zext (bump, prec))
>>> + : wi::eq_p (bump, wi::sext (bump, prec)))
>>
>> Not sure, but would it be fixed in a similar way when writing
>>
>> @@ -2089,16 +2089,9 @@ replace_mult_candidate (slsr_cand_t c, t
>> tree target_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (c->cand_stmt));
>> enum tree_code cand_code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt);
>>
>> - /* It is highly unlikely, but possible, that the resulting
>> - bump doesn't fit in a HWI. Abandon the replacement
>> - in this case. This does not affect siblings or dependents
>> - of C. Restriction to signed HWI is conservative for unsigned
>> - types but allows for safe negation without twisted logic. */
>> - if (wi::fits_shwi_p (bump)
>> - && bump.to_shwi () != HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN
>> - /* It is not useful to replace casts, copies, negates, or adds of
>> - an SSA name and a constant. */
>> - && cand_code != SSA_NAME
>> + /* It is not useful to replace casts, copies, negates, or adds of
>> + an SSA name and a constant. */
>> + if (cand_code != SSA_NAME
>> && !CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (cand_code)
>> && cand_code != PLUS_EXPR
>> && cand_code != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
>> @@ -2109,18 +2102,25 @@ replace_mult_candidate (slsr_cand_t c, t
>> tree bump_tree;
>> gimple *stmt_to_print = NULL;
>>
>> - /* If the basis name and the candidate's LHS have incompatible
>> - types, introduce a cast. */
>> - if (!useless_type_conversion_p (target_type, TREE_TYPE (basis_name)))
>> - basis_name = introduce_cast_before_cand (c, target_type, basis_name);
>> if (wi::neg_p (bump))
>> {
>> code = MINUS_EXPR;
>> bump = -bump;
>> }
>> + /* It is possible that the resulting bump doesn't fit in target_type.
>> + Abandon the replacement in this case. This does not affect
>> + siblings or dependents of C. */
>> + if (bump != wi::ext (bump, TYPE_PRECISION (target_type),
>> + TYPE_SIGN (target_type)))
>> + return;
>>
>> bump_tree = wide_int_to_tree (target_type, bump);
>>
>> + /* If the basis name and the candidate's LHS have incompatible
>> + types, introduce a cast. */
>> + if (!useless_type_conversion_p (target_type, TREE_TYPE (basis_name)))
>> + basis_name = introduce_cast_before_cand (c, target_type, basis_name);
>> +
>> if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
>> {
>> fputs ("Replacing: ", dump_file);
>>
>> ?
>
> Ah, I see what you're going for. It looks reasonable on the surface. Let me
> do
> some testing and think about it a little more.
I think you still need the specific test for whether the original bump fits in
an
HWI, since wide_int_to_tree will convert to a tree that only stores a single
HWI, right? I'll test with that remaining in place but otherwise follow the
direction of your suggestion.
Bill
>
> Thanks!
> Bill
>
>>
>>> /* It is not useful to replace casts, copies, negates, or adds of
>>> an SSA name and a constant. */
>>> && cand_code != SSA_NAME
>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81503.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81503.c (nonexistent)
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81503.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>>> +unsigned short a = 41461;
>>> +unsigned short b = 3419;
>>> +int c = 0;
>>> +
>>> +void foo() {
>>> + if (a + b * ~(0 != 5))
>>> + c = -~(b * ~(0 != 5)) + 2147483647;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int main() {
>>> + foo();
>>> + if (c != 2147476810)
>>> + return -1;
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/3/17 1:02 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> And, wouldn't it be more readable to use:
>>>>>>> && (TYPE_UNSIGNED (target_type)
>>>>>>> ? (wi::eq_p (bump, wi::zext (bump, prec))
>>>>>>> || wi::eq_p (bump + wi::to_widest (maxval) + 1,
>>>>>>> wi::zext (bump, prec)))
>>>>>>> : wi::eq_p (bump, wi::sext (bump, prec)))
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>> Probably. As noted, it's all becoming a bit unreadable with too
>>>>>> much negative logic in a long conditional, so I want to clean that
>>>>>> up in a follow-up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For TYPE_UNSIGNED, do you actually need any restriction?
>>>>>>> What kind of bump values are wrong for unsigned types and why?
>>>>>> If the value of the bump is actually larger than the precision of the
>>>>>> type (not likely except for quite small types), say 2 * (maxval + 1)
>>>>>> which is congruent to 0, the replacement is wrong.
>>>>> Ah, ok. Anyway, for unsigned type, perhaps it could be written as:
>>>>> && (TYPE_UNSIGNED (target_type)
>>>>> ? wi::eq_p (wi::neg_p (bump) ? bump + wi::to_widest (maxval) + 1
>>>>> : bump, wi::zext (bump, prec))
>>>>> : wi::eq_p (bump, wi::sext (bump, prec)))
>>>>> I mean, if bump >= 0, then the bump + wi::to_widest (maxval) + 1
>>>>> value has no chance to be equal to zero extended bump, and
>>>>> for bump < 0 only that one has a chance.
>>>> Yeah, that's true. And arguably my case for the really large bump
>>>> causing problems is kind of thin, because the program is probably
>>>> already broken in that case anyway. But I think I will sleep better
>>>> having the check in there, as somebody other than SLSR will catch
>>>> the bug then. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the help with this one. These corner cases are
>>>> always tricky, and I appreciate the extra eyeballs.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>> Jakub
