Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/27/23 05:39, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> >> The easiest way to avoid running into the alias analysis problem is
>> >> to scrap the MEM_EXPR when we expand the internal functions for
>> >> partial loads/stores. That avoids the disambiguation we run into
>> >> which is realizing that we store to an object of less size as
>> >> the size of the mode we appear to store.
>> >>
>> >> After the patch we see just
>> >>
>> >> [1 S64 A32]
>> >>
>> >> so we preserve the alias set, the alignment and the size (the size
>> >> is redundant if the MEM insn't BLKmode). That's still not good
>> >> in case the RTL alias oracle would implement the same
>> >> disambiguation but it fends off the gimple one.
>> >>
>> >> This fixes gcc.dg/torture/pr58955-2.c when built with AVX512
>> >> and --param=vect-partial-vector-usage=1.
>> >
>> > On riscv we're seeing a similar problem across the testsuite
>> > and several execution failures as a result. In the case I
>> > looked at we move a scalar load upwards over a partial store
>> > that aliases the load.
>> >
>> > I independently arrived at the spot mentioned in
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110237#c4
>> > before knowing about the PR.
>> >
>> > I can confirm that your RFC patch fixes at least two of the
>> > failures, I haven't checked the others but very likely
>> > they are similar.
>> FWIW, it should always be safe to ignore the memory attributes. So if
>> there's a reasonable condition here, then we can use it and just ignore the
>> attribute.
>>
>> Does the attribute on a partial load/store indicate the potential load/store
>> size or does it indicate the actual known load/store size. If the former,
>> then
>> we probably need to treat it as a may-read/may-write kind of reference.
>
> There's no way to distinguish a partial vs. non-partial MEM on RTL and
> while without the bogus MEM_ATTR the alias oracle pieces that
> miscompiled the original case are fended off we still see the load/store
> as full given they have a mode with a size - that for example means
> that DSE can elide a previous store to a masked part. Eventually
> that's fended off by using an UNSPEC, but whether the RTL IL has
> the correct semantics is questionable.
>
> That said, I did propose scrapping the MEM_EXPR which I think is
> the correct thing to do unless we want to put a CALL_EXPR into it
> (nothing would use that at the moment) or re-do MEM_EXPR and instead
> have an ao_ref (or sth slightly more complete) instead of the current
> MEM_ATTRs - but that would be a lot of work.
>
> This leaves the question wrt. semantics of for example x86 mask_store:
>
> (insn 23 22 24 5 (set (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 106 [ x ])
> (reg:DI 101 [ ivtmp.15 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4) double>
> [(double *)x_11(D) + ivtmp.15_33 * 1]+0 S32 A64])
> (unspec:V4DF [
> (reg:V4DI 104 [ mask__16.8 ])
> (reg:V4DF 105 [ vect_cst__42 ])
> (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 106 [ x ])
> (reg:DI 101 [ ivtmp.15 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4)
> double> [(double *)x_11(D) + ivtmp.15_33 * 1]+0 S32 A64])
> ] UNSPEC_MASKMOV)) "t.c":5:12 8523 {avx_maskstorepd256}
> (nil))
>
> it uses a read-modify-write which makes it safe for DSE. mask_load
> looks like
>
> (insn 28 27 29 6 (set (reg:V4DF 115 [ vect__7.11 ])
> (unspec:V4DF [
> (reg:V4DI 114 [ mask__8.8 ])
> (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 118 [ val ])
> (reg:DI 103 [ ivtmp.29 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4)
> double> [(double *)val_13(D) + ivtmp.29_22 * 1]+0 S32 A64])
> ] UNSPEC_MASKMOV)) "t.c":5:17 8515 {avx_maskloadpd256}
> (nil))
>
> both have (as operand of the UNSPEC) a MEM with V4DFmode (and a
> MEM_EXPR with a similarly bougs MEM_EXPR) indicating the loads
> are _not_ partial. That means the disambiguation against a store
> to an object that's smaller than V4DF is still possible.
> Setting MEM_SIZE to UNKNOWN doesn't help - that just asks to look
> at the mode. As discussed using a BLKmode MEM _might_ be a way
> out but I didn't try what will happen then (patterns would need to
> be adjusted I guess).
>
> That said, I'm happy to commit the partial fix, scrapping the
> bogus MEM_EXPRs.
>
> OK for that?
Could we restrict it to cases where the offset+size might overstep the
bounds? I.e. do the equivalent of:
/* Drop the object if the new right end is not within its bounds. */
if (adjust_object && maybe_gt (offset + size, attrs.size))
{
attrs.expr = NULL_TREE;
attrs.alias = 0;
}
(from adjust_address_1, although it might be difficult to reuse that
code in this context).
Richard
