On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 8/14/19 2:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/2/19 9:01 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >>> On 8/2/19 3:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no test coverage for the movmisalign optab though, so I
> >>>>> rely on your code review for that part.
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks OK. I tried to make it trigger on the following on
> >>>> i?86 with -msse2:
> >>>>
> >>>> typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
> >>>>
> >>>> struct S { v4si v; } __attribute__((packed));
> >>>>
> >>>> v4si foo (struct S s)
> >>>> {
> >>>> return s.v;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, the entry_parm need to be a MEM_P and an unaligned one.
> >>> So the test case could be made to trigger it this way:
> >>>
> >>> typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
> >>>
> >>> struct S { v4si v; } __attribute__((packed));
> >>>
> >>> int t;
> >>> v4si foo (struct S a, struct S b, struct S c, struct S d,
> >>> struct S e, struct S f, struct S g, struct S h,
> >>> int i, int j, int k, int l, int m, int n,
> >>> int o, struct S s)
> >>> {
> >>> t = o;
> >>> return s.v;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ah, I realized that there are already a couple of very similar
> >> test cases: gcc.target/i386/pr35767-1.c, gcc.target/i386/pr35767-1d.c,
> >> gcc.target/i386/pr35767-1i.c and gcc.target/i386/pr39445.c,
> >> which also manage to execute the movmisalign code with the latest patch
> >> version. So I thought that it is not necessary to add another one.
> >>
> >>> However the code path is still not reached, since
> >>> targetm.slow_ualigned_access
> >>> is always FALSE, which is probably a flaw in my patch.
> >>>
> >>> So I think,
> >>>
> >>> + else if (MEM_P (data->entry_parm)
> >>> + && GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (promoted_nominal_mode)
> >>> + > MEM_ALIGN (data->entry_parm)
> >>> + && targetm.slow_unaligned_access (promoted_nominal_mode,
> >>> + MEM_ALIGN
> >>> (data->entry_parm)))
> >>>
> >>> should probably better be
> >>>
> >>> + else if (MEM_P (data->entry_parm)
> >>> + && GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (promoted_nominal_mode)
> >>> + > MEM_ALIGN (data->entry_parm)
> >>> + && (((icode = optab_handler (movmisalign_optab,
> >>> promoted_nominal_mode))
> >>> + != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> >>> + || targetm.slow_unaligned_access (promoted_nominal_mode,
> >>> + MEM_ALIGN
> >>> (data->entry_parm))))
> >>>
> >>> Right?
> >>>
> >>> Then the modified test case would use the movmisalign optab.
> >>> However nothing changes in the end, since the i386 back-end is used to
> >>> work
> >>> around the middle end not using movmisalign optab when it should do so.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I prefer the second form of the check, as it offers more test coverage,
> >> and is probably more correct than the former.
> >>
> >> Note there are more variations of this misalign check in expr.c,
> >> some are somehow odd, like expansion of MEM_REF and VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR:
> >>
> >> && mode != BLKmode
> >> && align < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode))
> >> {
> >> if ((icode = optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode))
> >> != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> >> [...]
> >> else if (targetm.slow_unaligned_access (mode, align))
> >> temp = extract_bit_field (temp, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode),
> >> 0, TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (exp)),
> >> (modifier == EXPAND_STACK_PARM
> >> ? NULL_RTX : target),
> >> mode, mode, false, alt_rtl);
> >>
> >> I wonder if they are correct this way, why shouldn't we use the movmisalign
> >> optab if it exists, regardless of TARGET_SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESSS ?
> >
> > Doesn't the code do exactly this? Prefer movmisalign over
> > extrct_bit_field?
> >
>
> Ah, yes. How could I miss that.
>
> >>
> >>> I wonder if I should try to add a gcc_checking_assert to the mov<mode>
> >>> expand
> >>> patterns that the memory is properly aligned ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Wow, that was a really exciting bug-hunt with those assertions around...
> >
> > :)
> >
> >>>> @@ -3292,6 +3306,23 @@ assign_parm_setup_reg (struct assign_parm_data_all
> >>>>
> >>>> did_conversion = true;
> >>>> }
> >>>> + else if (MEM_P (data->entry_parm)
> >>>> + && GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (promoted_nominal_mode)
> >>>> + > MEM_ALIGN (data->entry_parm)
> >>>>
> >>>> we arrive here by-passing
> >>>>
> >>>> else if (need_conversion)
> >>>> {
> >>>> /* We did not have an insn to convert directly, or the sequence
> >>>> generated appeared unsafe. We must first copy the parm to a
> >>>> pseudo reg, and save the conversion until after all
> >>>> parameters have been moved. */
> >>>>
> >>>> int save_tree_used;
> >>>> rtx tempreg = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (data->entry_parm));
> >>>>
> >>>> emit_move_insn (tempreg, validated_mem);
> >>>>
> >>>> but this move instruction is invalid in the same way as the case
> >>>> you fix, no? So wouldn't it be better to do
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We could do that, but I supposed that there must be a reason why
> >>> assign_parm_setup_stack gets away with that same:
> >>>
> >>> if (data->promoted_mode != data->nominal_mode)
> >>> {
> >>> /* Conversion is required. */
> >>> rtx tempreg = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (data->entry_parm));
> >>>
> >>> emit_move_insn (tempreg, validize_mem (copy_rtx
> >>> (data->entry_parm)));
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So either some back-ends are too permissive with us,
> >>> or there is a reason why promoted_mode != nominal_mode
> >>> does not happen together with unaligned entry_parm.
> >>> In a way that would be a rather unusual ABI.
> >>>
> >>
> >> To find out if that ever happens I added a couple of checking
> >> assertions in the arm mov<mode> expand patterns.
> >>
> >> So far the assertions did (almost) always hold, so it is likely not
> >> necessary to fiddle with all those naive move instructions here.
> >>
> >> So my gut feeling is, leave those places alone until there is a reason
> >> for changing them.
> >
> > Works for me - I wonder if we should add those asserts to generic
> > code (guarded with flag_checking) though.
> >
>
> Well, yes, but I was scared away by the complexity of emit_move_insn_1.
>
> It could be done, but in the moment I would be happy to have these
> checks of one major strict alignment target, ARM is a good candidate
> since most instructions work even if they are accidentally
> using unaligned arguments. So middle-end errors do not always
> visible by ordinary tests. Nevertheless it is a blatant violation of the
> contract between middle-end and back-end, which should be avoided.
Fair enough.
> >> However the assertion in movsi triggered a couple times in the
> >> ada testsuite due to expand_builtin_init_descriptor using a
> >> BLKmode MEM rtx, which is only 8-bit aligned. So, I set the
> >> ptr_mode alignment there explicitly.
> >
> > Looks good given we emit ptr_mode moves into it. Thus OK independently.
> >
>
> Thanks, committed as r274487.
>
> >> Several struct-layout-1.dg testcase tripped over misaligned
> >> complex_cst constants, fixed by varasm.c (align_variable).
> >> This is likely a wrong code bug, because misaligned complex
> >> constants, are expanded to misaligned MEM_REF, but the
> >> expansion cannot handle misaligned constants, only packed
> >> structure fields.
> >
> > Hmm. So your patch overrides user-alignment here. Woudln't it
> > be better to do that more conciously by
> >
> > if (! DECL_USER_ALIGN (decl)
> > || (align < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (DECL_MODE (decl))
> > && targetm.slow_unaligned_access (DECL_MODE (decl), align)))
> >
> > ? And why is the movmisalign optab support missing here?
> >
>
> Yes, I wanted to replicate what we have in assign_parm_adjust_stack_rtl:
>
> /* If we can't trust the parm stack slot to be aligned enough for its
> ultimate type, don't use that slot after entry. We'll make another
> stack slot, if we need one. */
> if (stack_parm
> && ((GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (data->nominal_mode) > MEM_ALIGN (stack_parm)
> && targetm.slow_unaligned_access (data->nominal_mode,
> MEM_ALIGN (stack_parm)))
>
> which also makes a variable more aligned than it is declared.
> But maybe both should also check the movmisalign optab in
> addition to slow_unaligned_access ?
Quite possible.
> > IMHO whatever code later fails to properly use unaligned loads
> > should be fixed instead rather than ignoring user requested alignment.
> >
> > Can you quote a short testcase that explains what exactly goes wrong?
> > The struct-layout ones are awkward to look at...
> >
>
> Sure,
>
> $ cat test.c
> _Complex float __attribute__((aligned(1))) cf;
>
> void foo (void)
> {
> cf = 1.0i;
> }
>
> $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -S test.c
> during RTL pass: expand
> test.c: In function 'foo':
> test.c:5:6: internal compiler error: in gen_movsf, at config/arm/arm.md:7003
> 5 | cf = 1.0i;
> | ~~~^~~~~~
> 0x7ba475 gen_movsf(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:7003
> 0xa49587 insn_gen_fn::operator()(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) const
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/recog.h:318
> 0xa49587 emit_move_insn_1(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3695
> 0xa49914 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3791
> 0xa494f7 emit_move_complex_parts(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3490
> 0xa49914 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3791
> 0xa5106f store_expr(tree_node*, rtx_def*, int, bool, bool)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:5855
> 0xa51cc0 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:5441
Huh, so why didn't it trigger
/* Handle misaligned stores. */
mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (to));
if ((TREE_CODE (to) == MEM_REF
|| TREE_CODE (to) == TARGET_MEM_REF)
&& mode != BLKmode
&& !mem_ref_refers_to_non_mem_p (to)
&& ((align = get_object_alignment (to))
< GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode))
&& (((icode = optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode))
!= CODE_FOR_nothing)
|| targetm.slow_unaligned_access (mode, align)))
{
? (_Complex float is 32bit aligned it seems, the DECL_RTL for the
var is (mem/c:SC (symbol_ref:SI ("cf") [flags 0x2] <var_decl
0x2aaaaaad1240 cf>) [1 cf+0 S8 A8]), SCmode is 32bit aligned.
Ah, 'to' is a plain DECL here so the above handling is incomplete.
IIRC component refs like __real cf = 0.f should be handled fine
again(?). So, does adding || DECL_P (to) fix the case as well?
> 0xa51cc0 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool)
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:4983
> 0x93396f expand_gimple_stmt_1
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3777
> 0x93396f expand_gimple_stmt
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3875
> 0x9392e1 expand_gimple_basic_block
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5915
> 0x93b046 execute
> ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6538
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
> See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
>
> Without the hunk in varasm.c of course.
>
> What happens is that expand_expr_real_2 returns a unaligned mem_ref here:
>
> case COMPLEX_CST:
> /* Handle evaluating a complex constant in a CONCAT target. */
> if (original_target && GET_CODE (original_target) == CONCAT)
> {
> [... this path not taken ...]
> }
>
> /* fall through */
>
> case STRING_CST:
> temp = expand_expr_constant (exp, 1, modifier);
>
> /* temp contains a constant address.
> On RISC machines where a constant address isn't valid,
> make some insns to get that address into a register. */
> if (modifier != EXPAND_CONST_ADDRESS
> && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER
> && modifier != EXPAND_SUM
> && ! memory_address_addr_space_p (mode, XEXP (temp, 0),
> MEM_ADDR_SPACE (temp)))
> return replace_equiv_address (temp,
> copy_rtx (XEXP (temp, 0)));
> return temp;
>
> The result of expand_expr_real(..., EXPAND_NORMAL) ought to be usable
> by emit_move_insn, that is expected just *everywhere* and can't be changed.
>
> This could probably be fixed in an ugly way in the COMPLEX_CST, handler
> but OTOH, I don't see any reason why this constant has to be misaligned
> when it can be easily aligned, which avoids the need for a misaligned access.
If the COMPLEX_CST happends to end up in unaligned memory then that's
of course a bug (unless the target requests that for all COMPLEX_CSTs).
That is, if the unalignment is triggered because the store is to an
unaligned decl.
But I think the issue is the above one?
> >> Furthermore gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-33.c was fixed by the
> >> change in expr.c (expand_expr_real_1). Certainly is it invalid
> >> to read memory at a function address, but it should not ICE.
> >> The problem here, is the MEM_REF has no valid MEM_ALIGN, it looks
> >> like A32, so the misaligned code execution is not taken, but it is
> >> set to A8 below, but then we hit an ICE if the result is used:
> >
> > So the user accessed it as A32.
> >
> >> /* Don't set memory attributes if the base expression is
> >> SSA_NAME that got expanded as a MEM. In that case, we should
> >> just honor its original memory attributes. */
> >> if (TREE_CODE (tem) != SSA_NAME || !MEM_P (orig_op0))
> >> set_mem_attributes (op0, exp, 0);
> >
> > Huh, I don't understand this. 'tem' should never be SSA_NAME.
>
> tem is the result of get_inner_reference, why can't that be a SSA_NAME ?
We can't subset an SSA_NAME. I have really no idea what this intended
to do...
> > But set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos uses get_object_alignment_1
> > and that has special treatment for FUNCTION_DECLs that is not
> > covered by
> >
> > /* When EXP is an actual memory reference then we can use
> > TYPE_ALIGN of a pointer indirection to derive alignment.
> > Do so only if get_pointer_alignment_1 did not reveal absolute
> > alignment knowledge and if using that alignment would
> > improve the situation. */
> > unsigned int talign;
> > if (!addr_p && !known_alignment
> > && (talign = min_align_of_type (TREE_TYPE (exp)) *
> > BITS_PER_UNIT)
> > && talign > align)
> > align = talign;
> >
> > which could be moved out of the if-cascade.
> >
> > That said, setting A8 should eventually result into appropriate
> > unaligned expansion, so it seems odd this triggers the assert...
> >
>
> The function pointer is really 32-byte aligned in ARM mode to start
> with...
>
> The problem is that the code that handles this misaligned access
> is skipped because the mem_rtx has initially no MEM_ATTRS and therefore
> MEM_ALIGN == 32, and therefore the code that handles the unaligned
> access is not taken. BUT before the mem_rtx is returned it is
> set to MEM_ALIGN = 8 by set_mem_attributes, and we have an assertion,
> because the result from expand_expr_real(..., EXPAND_NORMAL) ought to be
> usable with emit_move_insn.
yes, as said the _access_ determines the address should be aligned
so we shouldn't end up setting MEM_ALIGN to 8 but to 32 according
to the access type/mode. But we can't trust DECL_ALIGN of
FUNCTION_DECLs but we _can_ trust users writing *(int *)fn
(maybe for actual accesses we _can_ trust DECL_ALIGN, it's just
we may not compute nonzero bits for the actual address because
of function pointer mangling)
(for accessing function code I'd say this would be premature
optimization, but ...)
> >>
> >> Finally gcc.dg/torture/pr48493.c required the change
> >> in assign_parm_setup_stack. This is just not using the
> >> correct MEM_ALIGN attribute value, while the memory is
> >> actually aligned.
> >
> > But doesn't
> >
> > int align = STACK_SLOT_ALIGNMENT (data->passed_type,
> > GET_MODE (data->entry_parm),
> > TYPE_ALIGN
> > (data->passed_type));
> > + if (align < (int)GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE
> > (data->entry_parm))
> > + && targetm.slow_unaligned_access (GET_MODE
> > (data->entry_parm),
> > + align))
> > + align = GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (data->entry_parm));
> >
> > hint at that STACK_SLOT_ALIGNMENT is simply bogus for the target?
> > That is, the target says, for natural alignment 64 the stack slot
> > alignment can only be guaranteed 32. You can't then simply up it
> > but have to use unaligned accesses (or the target/middle-end needs
> > to do dynamic stack alignment).
> >
> Yes, maybe, but STACK_SLOT_ALIGNMENT is used in a few other places as well,
> and none of them have a problem, probably because they use expand_expr,
> but here we use emit_move_insn:
>
> if (MEM_P (src))
> {
> [...]
> }
> else
> {
> if (!REG_P (src))
> src = force_reg (GET_MODE (src), src);
> emit_move_insn (dest, src);
> }
>
> So I could restrict that to
>
> if (!MEM_P (data->entry_parm)
> && align < (int)GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (data->entry_parm))
> && ((optab_handler (movmisalign_optab,
> GET_MODE (data->entry_parm))
> != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> || targetm.slow_unaligned_access (GET_MODE
> (data->entry_parm),
> align)))
> align = GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (GET_MODE (data->entry_parm));
>
> But OTOH even for arguments arriving in unaligned stack slots where
> emit_block_move could handle it, that would just work against the
> intention of assign_parm_adjust_stack_rtl.
>
> Of course there are limits how much alignment assign_stack_local
> can handle, and that would result in an assertion in the emit_move_insn.
> But in the end if that happens it is just an impossible target
> configuration.
Still I think you can't simply override STACK_SLOT_ALIGNMENT just because
of the mode of an entry param, can you? If you can assume a bigger
alignment then STACK_SLOT_ALIGNMENT should return it.
> >
> >> Note that set_mem_attributes does not
> >> always preserve the MEM_ALIGN of the ref, since:
> >
> > set_mem_attributes sets _all_ attributes from an expression or type.
> >
>
> Not really:
>
> refattrs = MEM_ATTRS (ref);
> if (refattrs)
> {
> /* ??? Can this ever happen? Calling this routine on a MEM that
> already carries memory attributes should probably be invalid. */
> [...]
> attrs.align = refattrs->align;
> }
> else
> [...]
>
> if (objectp || TREE_CODE (t) == INDIRECT_REF)
> attrs.align = MAX (attrs.align, TYPE_ALIGN (type));
>
> >> /* Default values from pre-existing memory attributes if present. */
> >> refattrs = MEM_ATTRS (ref);
> >> if (refattrs)
> >> {
> >> /* ??? Can this ever happen? Calling this routine on a MEM that
> >> already carries memory attributes should probably be invalid. */
> >> attrs.expr = refattrs->expr;
> >> attrs.offset_known_p = refattrs->offset_known_p;
> >> attrs.offset = refattrs->offset;
> >> attrs.size_known_p = refattrs->size_known_p;
> >> attrs.size = refattrs->size;
> >> attrs.align = refattrs->align;
> >> }
> >>
> >> but if we happen to set_mem_align to _exactly_ the MODE_ALIGNMENT
> >> the MEM_ATTRS are zero, and a smaller alignment may result.
> >
> > Not sure what you are saying here. That
> >
> > set_mem_align (MEM:SI A32, 32)
> >
> > produces a NULL MEM_ATTRS and thus set_mem_attributes not inheriting
> > the A32 but eventually computing sth lower? Yeah, that's probably
> > an interesting "hole" here. I'm quite sure that if we'd do
> >
> > refattrs = MEM_ATTRS (ref) ? MEM_ATTRS (ref) : mem_mode_attrs[(int)
> > GET_MODE (ref)];
> >
> > we run into issues exactly on strict-align targets ...
> >
>
> Yeah, that's scary...
>
> >> Well with those checks in place it should now be a lot harder to generate
> >> invalid code on STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets, without running into an ICE.
> >>
> >> Attached is the latest version of my arm alignment patch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Boot-strapped and reg-tested on x64_64-pc-linux-gnu and
> >> arm-linux-gnueabihf.
> >> Is it OK for trunk?
> >
> > @@ -3291,6 +3306,23 @@ assign_parm_setup_reg (struct assign_parm_data_all
> >
> > did_conversion = true;
> > }
> > + else if (MEM_P (data->entry_parm)
> > + && GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (promoted_nominal_mode)
> > + > MEM_ALIGN (data->entry_parm)
> > + && (((icode = optab_handler (movmisalign_optab,
> > + promoted_nominal_mode))
> > + != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> > + || targetm.slow_unaligned_access (promoted_nominal_mode,
> > + MEM_ALIGN
> > (data->entry_parm))))
> > + {
> > + if (icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> > + emit_insn (GEN_FCN (icode) (parmreg, validated_mem));
> > + else
> > + rtl = parmreg = extract_bit_field (validated_mem,
> > + GET_MODE_BITSIZE (promoted_nominal_mode), 0,
> > + unsignedp, parmreg,
> > + promoted_nominal_mode, VOIDmode, false, NULL);
> > + }
> > else
> > emit_move_insn (parmreg, validated_mem);
> >
> > This hunk would be obvious to me if we'd use MEM_ALIGN (validated_mem) /
> > GET_MODE (validated_mem) instead of MEM_ALIGN (data->entry_parm)
> > and promoted_nominal_mode.
> >
>
> Yes, the idea is just to save some cycles, since
>
> parmreg = gen_reg_rtx (promoted_nominal_mode);
> we know that parmreg will also have that mode, plus
> emit_move_insn (parmreg, validated_mem) which would be called here
> asserts that:
>
> gcc_assert (mode != BLKmode
> && (GET_MODE (y) == mode || GET_MODE (y) == VOIDmode));
>
> so GET_MODE(validated_mem) == GET_MODE (parmreg) == promoted_nominal_mode
>
> I still like the current version with promoted_nominal_mode slighhtly
> better both because of performance, and the 80-column restriction. :)
So if you say they are 1:1 equivalent then go for it (for this hunk,
approved as "obvious").
Richard.
