------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-10 15:32 -------
store_copyprop is not able to optimize this because the two array refs
r.dst[0].i use different types for the index zero (one int, one unsigned long)
and one has operand2 and operand3 set but the other not and operand_equal_p
compares not by value. Doh. No idea why operand_equal_p should care about
those operands as
/* Array indexing.
Operand 0 is the array; operand 1 is a (single) array index.
Operand 2, if present, is a copy of TYPE_MIN_VALUE of the index.
Operand 3, if present, is the element size, measured in units of
the alignment of the element type. */
DEFTREECODE (ARRAY_REF, "array_ref", tcc_reference, 4)
correctly hints that those do not carry extra information. With those "fixed"
we finally get
<bb 2>:
d.0 = (__m128i *) d;
# VUSE <SMT.6_18(D)>
D.2490 = *d.0;
# SMT.6_21 = VDEF <SMT.6_18(D)>
D.2496 = __builtin_ia32_paddusb128 (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v16qi>(D.2490),
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v16qi>(D.2490));
# SMT.6_23 = VDEF <SMT.6_21>
__builtin_ia32_movntdq (d.0, VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__m128i>(D.2496));
as store_copyprop can replace the loaded value by the stored one. "Fixed" as
in
Index: fold-const.c
===================================================================
*** fold-const.c (revision 123691)
--- fold-const.c (working copy)
*************** operand_equal_p (tree arg0, tree arg1, u
*** 2884,2894 ****
case ARRAY_REF:
case ARRAY_RANGE_REF:
! /* Operands 2 and 3 may be null. */
return (OP_SAME (0)
! && OP_SAME (1)
! && OP_SAME_WITH_NULL (2)
! && OP_SAME_WITH_NULL (3));
case COMPONENT_REF:
/* Handle operand 2 the same as for ARRAY_REF. Operand 0
--- 2884,2896 ----
case ARRAY_REF:
case ARRAY_RANGE_REF:
! /* Operands 2 and 3 do not provide extra information.
! Compare the array index by value if it is constant first as we
! may have different types but same value here. */
return (OP_SAME (0)
! && (tree_int_cst_equal (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1),
! TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1))
! || OP_SAME (1)));
case COMPONENT_REF:
/* Handle operand 2 the same as for ARRAY_REF. Operand 0
another thing would be to hunt down where the different typed indices are
produced and to either get rid of operands 2 and 3 from ARRAY_REF or
produce them consistently.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2007-04-10 14:37:48 |2007-04-10 15:32:01
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31307
