On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:50:09AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Hmm, in fwprop can you limit your change to non-invariant addresses? 
> > That is, we do want to propagate invariant addresses over
> > restrict casts, because that will give us _more_ precise alias info
> > than restrict.
> 
> Will it?

Definitely.  Seeing a decl will enable better offset-based
disambiguation.

> I'd think we instead want add the non-restrict -> restrict check
> in another spot (ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine) below.
> Without that I'm afraid it is harder to disambiguate the accesses
> (though, it still fails).  Or should PTA be able to disambiguate
> it even without the ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine hunk?
> One store will be through p1 + variableoffset with PT { a, <restrict decl for 
> p1> } (restr)
> and the other either with the hunk to p2 + constoffset with PT { a, <restrict 
> decl for p2> } (restr)
> or without the hunk a + constoffset.

But that points-to sets means the pointers are based on a common
pointer (&a), thus they will not be disambiguated.

I fear that we won't ever get

 int * restrict x = p;
 int * restrict y = p + 10;

optimized but not "optimize" a following

 int * restrict x1 = x + 1;

that's the whole point of adding the restrict tags - to be able to
follow to a common base-object conservatively.

Richard.

> 2011-09-30  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
> 
>       * fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc): Don't optimize
>       POINTER_PLUS_EXPR casted to TYPE_RESTRICT pointer by
>       casting the inner pointer if it isn't TYPE_RESTRICT.
>       * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (forward_propagate_addr_expr_1): Don't through
>       casts from non-TYPE_RESTRICT pointer to TYPE_RESTRICT pointer.
> 
>       * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-4.c: New test.
>       * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-5.c: New test.
> 
> --- gcc/fold-const.c.jj       2011-09-29 14:25:46.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/fold-const.c  2011-09-29 18:20:04.000000000 +0200
> @@ -7929,6 +7929,7 @@ fold_unary_loc (location_t loc, enum tre
>        that this happens when X or Y is NOP_EXPR or Y is INTEGER_CST. */
>        if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type)
>         && TREE_CODE (arg0) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
> +       && (!TYPE_RESTRICT (type) || TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (arg0)))
>         && (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)) == INTEGER_CST
>             || TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0)) == NOP_EXPR
>             || TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)) == NOP_EXPR))
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c.jj        2011-09-15 12:18:54.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c   2011-09-30 10:02:46.000000000 +0200
> @@ -804,6 +804,10 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
>        && ((rhs_code == SSA_NAME && rhs == name)
>         || CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (rhs_code)))
>      {
> +      /* Don't propagate restrict pointer's RHS.  */
> +      if (TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
> +       && !TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (name)))
> +     return false;
>        /* Only recurse if we don't deal with a single use or we cannot
>        do the propagation to the current statement.  In particular
>        we can end up with a conversion needed for a non-invariant
> @@ -2392,7 +2396,9 @@ ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine (void)
>                as well, as this is valid gimple.  */
>             || (CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (code)
>                 && TREE_CODE (rhs) == ADDR_EXPR
> -               && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (lhs))))
> +               && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
> +               && (!TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
> +                   || TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (rhs)))))
>           {
>             tree base = get_base_address (TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0));
>             if ((!base
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-4.c.jj     2011-09-29 
> 20:21:00.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-4.c        2011-09-29 
> 20:21:57.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
> +
> +int
> +foo (int *x, int y)
> +{
> +  int *__restrict p1 = x;
> +  int *__restrict p2 = x + 32;
> +  p1[y] = 1;
> +  p2[4] = 2;
> +  return p1[y];
> +}
> +
> +int
> +bar (int *x, int y)
> +{
> +  int *__restrict p1 = x;
> +  int *p3 = x + 32;
> +  int *__restrict p2 = p3;
> +  p1[y] = 1;
> +  p2[4] = 2;
> +  return p1[y];
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return 1;" 2 "optimized" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-5.c.jj     2011-09-30 
> 10:04:45.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/restrict-5.c        2011-09-30 
> 10:05:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
> +
> +int a[64];
> +
> +int
> +foo (int x)
> +{
> +  int *__restrict p1 = a + 4;
> +  int *__restrict p2 = a + 16;
> +  p1[x] = 1;
> +  p2[2] = 2;
> +  return p1[x];
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return 1;" 1 "optimized" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
> 
> 
>       Jakub
> 
> 

-- 
Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer

Reply via email to