On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, guojiufu wrote: > On 2021-08-30 14:15, Jiufu Guo wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In patch r12-3136, niter->control, niter->bound and niter->cmp are > > derived from number_of_iterations_lt. While for 'until wrap condition', > > the calculation in number_of_iterations_lt is not align the requirements > > on the define of them and requirements in determine_exit_conditions. > > > > This patch calculate niter->control, niter->bound and niter->cmp in > > number_of_iterations_until_wrap. > > > > The ICEs in the PR are pass with this patch. > > Bootstrap and reg-tests pass on ppc64/ppc64le and x86. > > Is this ok for trunk? > > > > BR. > > Jiufu Guo > > > Add ChangeLog: > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2021-08-30 Jiufu Guo <guoji...@linux.ibm.com> > > PR tree-optimization/102087 > * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_until_wrap): > Set bound/cmp/control for niter. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2021-08-30 Jiufu Guo <guoji...@linux.ibm.com> > > PR tree-optimization/102087 > * gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c: Update tests. > * gcc.dg/pr102087.c: New test. > > > --- > > gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr102087.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c | 4 +++- > > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr102087.c > > > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c > > index 7af92d1c893..747f04d3ce0 100644 > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c > > @@ -1482,7 +1482,7 @@ number_of_iterations_until_wrap (class loop *, > > tree type, affine_iv *iv0, > > affine_iv *iv1, class tree_niter_desc *niter) > > { > > tree niter_type = unsigned_type_for (type); > > - tree step, num, assumptions, may_be_zero; > > + tree step, num, assumptions, may_be_zero, span; > > wide_int high, low, max, min; > > > > may_be_zero = fold_build2 (LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, iv1->base, > > iv0->base); > > @@ -1513,6 +1513,8 @@ number_of_iterations_until_wrap (class loop *, > > tree type, affine_iv *iv0, > > low = wi::to_wide (iv0->base); > > else > > low = min; > > + > > + niter->control = *iv1; > > } > > /* {base, -C} < n. */ > > else if (tree_int_cst_sign_bit (iv0->step) && integer_zerop > > (iv1->step)) > > @@ -1533,6 +1535,8 @@ number_of_iterations_until_wrap (class loop *, > > tree type, affine_iv *iv0, > > high = wi::to_wide (iv1->base); > > else > > high = max; > > + > > + niter->control = *iv0; > > } > > else > > return false;
it looks like the above two should already be in effect from the caller (guarding with integer_nozerop)? > > @@ -1556,6 +1560,14 @@ number_of_iterations_until_wrap (class loop *, > > tree type, affine_iv *iv0, > > niter->assumptions, assumptions); > > > > niter->control.no_overflow = false; > > + niter->control.base = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, niter_type, > > + niter->control.base, > > niter->control.step); how do we know IVn - STEP doesn't already wrap? A comment might be good to explain you're turning the simplified exit condition into { IVbase - STEP, +, STEP } != niter * STEP + (IVbase - STEP) which, when mathematically looking at it makes me wonder why there's the seemingly redundant '- STEP' term? Also is NE_EXPR really correct since STEP might be not 1? Only for non equality compares the '- STEP' should matter? Richard. > > + span = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, niter_type, niter->niter, > > + fold_convert (niter_type, niter->control.step)); > > + niter->bound = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, niter_type, span, > > + fold_convert (niter_type, niter->control.base)); > > + niter->bound = fold_convert (type, niter->bound); > > + niter->cmp = NE_EXPR; > > > > return true; > > } > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr102087.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr102087.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..ef1f9f5cba9 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr102087.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > > + > > +unsigned __attribute__ ((noinline)) > > +foo (int *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, unsigned l, unsigned n) > > +{ > > + while (n < ++l) > > + *a++ = *b++ + 1; > > + return l; > > +} > > + > > +volatile int a[1]; > > +unsigned b; > > +int c; > > + > > +int > > +check () > > +{ > > + int d; > > + for (; b > 1; b++) > > + for (c = 0; c < 2; c++) > > + for (d = 0; d < 2; d++) > > + a[0]; > > + return 0; > > +} > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c > > index 99289afec0b..40cb0240aaa 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_3.c > > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > > /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */ > > /* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-vect-details" } */ > > + > > #define TYPE int * > > #define MIN ((TYPE)0) > > #define MAX ((TYPE)((long long)-1)) > > @@ -10,4 +11,5 @@ > > > > #include "pr101145.inc" > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" } } */ > > +/* pointer size may not be vectorized, checking niter is ok. */ > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Symbolic number of iterations is" "vect" } > > } */ > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)