On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:03:33PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on {x86_64,i686,powerpc64le,aarch64,s390x}-linux,
> > ok for trunk?
> > 
> > 2022-03-13  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
> > 
> >     PR rtl-optimization/104814
> >     * ifcvt.cc (find_if_case_1, find_if_case_2): Punt if test_bb
> >     doesn't end with onlyjump_p.
> > 
> >     * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr104814.c: New test.
> > 
> > --- gcc/ifcvt.cc.jj 2022-02-09 12:55:50.750773751 +0100
> > +++ gcc/ifcvt.cc    2022-03-11 17:30:44.248855063 +0100
> > @@ -5259,6 +5259,10 @@ find_if_case_1 (basic_block test_bb, edg
> >       && CROSSING_JUMP_P (BB_END (else_bb))))
> >      return FALSE;
> > 
> > +  /* Verify test_bb ends in a conditional jump with no other side-effects. 
> > */ +  if (!BB_END (test_bb) || !onlyjump_p (BB_END (test_bb)))
> > +    return FALSE;
> > +
> >    /* THEN has one successor.  */
> >    if (!single_succ_p (then_bb))
> >      return FALSE;
> > @@ -5380,6 +5384,10 @@ find_if_case_2 (basic_block test_bb, edg
> >       && CROSSING_JUMP_P (BB_END (else_bb))))
> >      return FALSE;
> > 
> > +  /* Verify test_bb ends in a conditional jump with no other side-effects. 
> > */ +  if (!BB_END (test_bb) || !onlyjump_p (BB_END (test_bb)))
> > +    return FALSE;
> > +
> >    /* ELSE has one successor.  */
> >    if (!single_succ_p (else_bb))
> >      return FALSE;
> 
> Are the !BB_END tests really necessary?  cond_exec_process_if_block has the 
> same test on onlyjump_p without it.  Likewise for noce_find_if_block.

Probably not, I've put it there only because the neighboring code is testing
it too:
  if ((BB_END (then_bb)
       && JUMP_P (BB_END (then_bb))
       && CROSSING_JUMP_P (BB_END (then_bb)))
      || (BB_END (test_bb)
          && JUMP_P (BB_END (test_bb))
          && CROSSING_JUMP_P (BB_END (test_bb)))
      || (BB_END (else_bb)
          && JUMP_P (BB_END (else_bb))
          && CROSSING_JUMP_P (BB_END (else_bb))))
    return FALSE;
find_if_header which calls find_if_case_* has:
  if (EDGE_COUNT (test_bb->succs) != 2)
    return NULL;
at the start, and I think an empty bb can't have more than one successor,
because there is nothing to cause different control flow.

        Jakub

Reply via email to