Hi!

The patch I've just posted wasn't enough, because stmt_kills_ref_p_1
only did something if base == ref->base, but in the case of the dtors
base and ref->base are often MEM_REFs, which aren't equal, but they
just operand_equal_p.  And, for MEM_REFs, we don't even need to require
that the two MEM_REFs operand_equal_p, it is enough if the first operand
of both is the same, we don't need to care about either of the two types
(TBAA and MEM_REF's type), nor sizes, and can even handle different offset
arguments.  On IRC we've been talking with Richard about adding a predicate
function whether addresses are the same, but as that predicate would
necessarily require that the MEM_REF offset is the same constant (ignoring
the TBAA type on it), that would disallow handling different offsets,
so the function now performs all the checking inline.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2013-04-02  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR c++/34949
        * tree-ssa-alias.c (stmt_kills_ref_p_1): If base != ref->base,
        call operand_equal_p on them or for MEM_REFs just compare
        first argument for equality and attempt to deal even with differing
        offsets.

--- gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c.jj     2013-03-18 12:16:59.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c        2013-03-27 17:09:28.230216081 +0100
@@ -1870,20 +1870,51 @@ stmt_kills_ref_p_1 (gimple stmt, ao_ref
       && !stmt_can_throw_internal (stmt))
     {
       tree base, lhs = gimple_get_lhs (stmt);
-      HOST_WIDE_INT size, offset, max_size;
+      HOST_WIDE_INT size, offset, max_size, ref_offset = ref->offset;
       base = get_ref_base_and_extent (lhs, &offset, &size, &max_size);
       /* We can get MEM[symbol: sZ, index: D.8862_1] here,
         so base == ref->base does not always hold.  */
-      if (base == ref->base)
+      if (base != ref->base)
        {
-         /* For a must-alias check we need to be able to constrain
-            the access properly.  */
-         if (size != -1 && size == max_size)
+         /* If both base and ref->base are MEM_REFs, only compare the
+            first operand, and if the second operand isn't equal constant,
+            try to add the offsets into offset and ref_offset.  */
+         if (TREE_CODE (base) == MEM_REF && TREE_CODE (ref->base) == MEM_REF
+             && operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (base, 0),
+                                 TREE_OPERAND (ref->base, 0), 0))
            {
-             if (offset <= ref->offset
-                 && offset + size >= ref->offset + ref->max_size)
-               return true;
+             if (!tree_int_cst_equal (TREE_OPERAND (base, 0),
+                                      TREE_OPERAND (ref->base, 0)))
+               {
+                 double_int off1 = mem_ref_offset (base);
+                 off1 = off1.alshift (BITS_PER_UNIT == 8
+                                      ? 3 : exact_log2 (BITS_PER_UNIT),
+                                      HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT);
+                 off1 = off1 + double_int::from_shwi (offset);
+                 double_int off2 = mem_ref_offset (ref->base);
+                 off2 = off2.alshift (BITS_PER_UNIT == 8
+                                      ? 3 : exact_log2 (BITS_PER_UNIT),
+                                      HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT);
+                 off2 = off2 + double_int::from_shwi (ref_offset);
+                 if (off1.fits_shwi () && off2.fits_shwi ())
+                   {
+                     offset = off1.to_shwi ();
+                     ref_offset = off2.to_shwi ();
+                   }
+                 else
+                   size = -1;
+               }
            }
+         else if (!operand_equal_p (base, ref->base, 0))
+           size = -1;
+       }
+      /* For a must-alias check we need to be able to constrain
+        the access properly.  */
+      if (size != -1 && size == max_size)
+       {
+         if (offset <= ref_offset
+             && offset + size >= ref_offset + ref->max_size)
+           return true;
        }
     }
 

        Jakub

Reply via email to