On 9/18/18 11:12 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> My bad. Sigh. CCP doesn't track copies, just constants, so there's not >> going to be any data structure you can exploit. And I don't think >> there's a value number you can use to determine the two objects are the >> same. >> >> Hmm, let's back up a bit, what is does the relevant part of the IL look >> like before CCP? Is the real problem here that we have unpropagated >> copies lying around in the IL? Hmm, more likely the IL looksl ike: >> >> _8 = &pb_3(D)->a; >> _9 = _8; >> _1 = _9; >> strncpy (MEM_REF (&pb_3(D)->a), ...); >> MEM[(struct S *)_1].a[n_7] = 0; > > Yes, that is what the folder sees while the strncpy call is > being transformed/folded by ccp. The MEM_REF is folded just > after the strncpy call and that's when it's transformed into > > MEM[(struct S *)_8].a[n_7] = 0; > > (The assignments to _1 and _9 don't get removed until after > the dom walk finishes). > >> >> If we were to propagate the copies out we'd at best have: >> >> _8 = &pb_3(D)->a; >> strncpy (MEM_REF (&pb_3(D)->a), ...); >> MEM[(struct S *)_8].a[n_7] = 0; >> >> >> Is that in a form you can handle? Or would we also need to forward >> propagate the address computation into the use of _8? > > The above works as long as we look at the def_stmt of _8 in > the MEM_REF (we currently don't). That's also what the last > iteration of the loop does. In this case (with _8) it would > be discovered in the first iteration, so the loop could be > replaced by a simple if statement. > > But I'm not sure I understand the concern with the loop. Is > it that we are looping at all, i.e., the cost? Or that ccp > is doing something wrong or suboptimal? (Should have > propagated the value of _8 earlier?) I suspect it's more a concern that things like copies are typically propagated away. So their existence in the IL (and consequently your need to handle them) raises the question "has something else failed to do its job earlier".
During which of the CCP passes is this happening? Can we pull the warning out of the folder (even if that means having a distinct warning pass over the IL?) Jeff
