[Bug middle-end/33970] Missed optimization using unsigned char loop variable

[wvangulik at xs4all dot nl]

------- Comment #10 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl  2007-11-06 19:34 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> I think you will also find that if x is changed from ststic to auto the same
> problem appears.
> 

Ok, I tried to find the minimum test case.
And it has nothing todo with static/volatile/inline etc.

==============================================
int sub2(unsigned char); // external function

void foo(void) {
  unsigned char x;
  for(x=0;x<128; x++)
  {
    //sub2(x); //x is becomes a int (16bit)
    sub2(x+1); //x is char (8bit)
  }
}

All is compiled using 4.1.2 and  "avr-gcc -Wall -Os -mmcu=avr5 -S test.c"

The output when compiling with "sub2(x)"
=================================================
/* prologue: frame size=0 */
        push r28
        push r29
/* prologue end (size=2) */
        ldi r28,lo8(0)
        ldi r29,hi8(0)
.L2:
        mov r24,r28 ; << loads as a byte!
        call sub2
        adiw r28,1           ; << increment as a int
        cpi r28,128          ; << compare as a int
        cpc r29,__zero_reg__
        brne .L2
/* epilogue: frame size=0 */
        pop r29
        pop r28
        ret

The output when compiling with "sub2(x+1)"
================================================================
/* prologue: frame size=0 */
        push r17
/* prologue end (size=1) */
        ldi r17,lo8(0)
.L2:
        subi r17,lo8(-(1))
        mov r24,r17
        call sub2
        cpi r17,lo8(-128)
        brne .L2
/* epilogue: frame size=0 */
        pop r17
        ret
===========================================================


>From compiling with x as a int I got a sort of hint. When using x+1, x is
actually loaded with 1 (and not zero). 

So i tried:
======================================================
void foo(void) {
  unsigned char x;
  for(x=1;x<129; x++)
    sub2(x);
}


And it gives the assembler loop check as for the "sub(x+1)" variant of course
the loop is now effectivley the same as "sub2(x+1)". But the the incrementing
of x is now done after the call, so it proofs that this is not the problem. I
also tried different loop lengths, thinking 128 is the nasty one, but it did
not help.

======================================================
/* prologue: frame size=0 */
        push r17
/* prologue end (size=1) */
        ldi r17,lo8(1)
.L2:
        mov r24,r17
        call sub2
        subi r17,lo8(-(1))
        cpi r17,lo8(-127)
        brne .L2
/* epilogue: frame size=0 */
        pop r17
        ret


I am out of knowledge now, I do not know how to further debug GCC on this. Just
hoping this will help someone to pinpoint the problem.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33970