Hi,
On Wed, Oct 14 2020, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> here is updated patch with cap on number of iterations.
> I set the limit to 8 and bootstrapped it with additional assert that the
> limit is not met, it did not fire.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, OK?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-10-14 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz>
>
> * doc/invoke.texi: (ipa-jump-function-lookups): Document param.
> * ipa-modref.c (merge_call_side_effects): Use
> unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset.
> * ipa-prop.c (unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset): New function.
> * ipa-prop.h (unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset): Declare.
> * params.opt: (-param-ipa-jump-function-lookups): New.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.c b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> index 2d09d913051..cf3da6a6568 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> +++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> #include "domwalk.h"
> #include "builtins.h"
> #include "tree-cfgcleanup.h"
> +#include "options.h"
>
> /* Function summary where the parameter infos are actually stored. */
> ipa_node_params_t *ipa_node_params_sum = NULL;
> @@ -1222,6 +1223,73 @@ load_from_unmodified_param_or_agg (struct
> ipa_func_body_info *fbi,
> return index;
> }
>
> +/* Walk pointer adjustemnts from OP (such as POINTER_PLUS and ADDR_EXPR)
> + to find original pointer. Initialize RET to the pointer which results
> from
> + the walk.
> + If offset is known return true and initialize OFFSET_RET. */
> +
> +bool
> +unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset (tree op, tree *ret, poly_int64 *offset_ret)
> +{
> + poly_int64 offset = 0;
> + bool offset_known = true;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < param_ipa_jump_function_lookups; i++)
> + {
> + if (TREE_CODE (op) == ADDR_EXPR)
> + {
> + poly_int64 extra_offset = 0;
> + tree base = get_addr_base_and_unit_offset (TREE_OPERAND (op, 0),
> + &offset);
> + if (!base)
> + {
> + base = get_base_address (TREE_OPERAND (op, 0));
> + if (TREE_CODE (base) != MEM_REF)
> + break;
> + offset_known = false;
Umm, did you really intend to clear offset_known only after the break?
(I may not understand the nuances of the get_base... functions but it
strikes me as odd.)
Thanks,
Martin
