https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14) > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 > > > > --- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12) > > > > since we don't care about overflow here, it looks like the stripping > > > > should > > > > be recursive as long as it's a NOP expression between two integral > > > > types. > > > > > > > > That would get them to hash to the same IV expression. Trying now.. > > > > > > Note tree-affine is a tool that's used for this kind of "weak" equalities. > > > Convert both to affine, subtract them and if that's zero they are equal. > > > > Hmm that's useful, though in this case this becomes the actual expression > > that > > IVOpts uses. > > > > For instance this is done in alloc_iv and add_iv_candidate_for_use when > > determining the uses for the IV. > > > > It looks like it's trying to force a canonical representation with as > > minimum > > casting as possible. > > > > would the "affine"'ed tree be safe to use for this context? > > No, I'd use that just for the comparison. > > > What I've done currently is make a STRIP_ALL_NOPS that recursively strips > > NOPs > > for PLUS/MULT/MINUS. > > But the stripped expression isn't necessarily valid to use either because > of possible undefined overflow. It's probably safe to pick any of the > existing expressions (all are evaluated at each iteration), but if you > strip all NOPs from all of them you might end up with new undefined > behavior. > > At least if that stripped expression is inserted somewhere or other > new expressions are built upon it. does overflow matter for addressing mode though? if you have undefined behavior in your address space then your program would have crashed anyway no? In this case IVOpts would have already stripped away the outer NOPs so building upon this one could also cause undefined overflow can it not? i.e. if the IV was ((signed) unsigned_calculation.)
