On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 11/28/23 00:50, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > There's no way to distinguish a partial vs. non-partial MEM on RTL and > > while without the bogus MEM_ATTR the alias oracle pieces that > > miscompiled the original case are fended off we still see the load/store > > as full given they have a mode with a size - that for example means > > that DSE can elide a previous store to a masked part. Eventually > > that's fended off by using an UNSPEC, but whether the RTL IL has > > the correct semantics is questionable. > > > > That said, I did propose scrapping the MEM_EXPR which I think is > > the correct thing to do unless we want to put a CALL_EXPR into it > > (nothing would use that at the moment) or re-do MEM_EXPR and instead > > have an ao_ref (or sth slightly more complete) instead of the current > > MEM_ATTRs - but that would be a lot of work. > > > > This leaves the question wrt. semantics of for example x86 mask_store: > > > > (insn 23 22 24 5 (set (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 106 [ x ]) > > (reg:DI 101 [ ivtmp.15 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4) double> > > [(double *)x_11(D) + ivtmp.15_33 * 1]+0 S32 A64]) > > (unspec:V4DF [ > > (reg:V4DI 104 [ mask__16.8 ]) > > (reg:V4DF 105 [ vect_cst__42 ]) > > (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 106 [ x ]) > > (reg:DI 101 [ ivtmp.15 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4) > > double> [(double *)x_11(D) + ivtmp.15_33 * 1]+0 S32 A64]) > > ] UNSPEC_MASKMOV)) "t.c":5:12 8523 {avx_maskstorepd256} > > (nil)) > > > > it uses a read-modify-write which makes it safe for DSE. > Agreed. > > > mask_load > > looks like > > > > (insn 28 27 29 6 (set (reg:V4DF 115 [ vect__7.11 ]) > > (unspec:V4DF [ > > (reg:V4DI 114 [ mask__8.8 ]) > > (mem:V4DF (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 118 [ val ]) > > (reg:DI 103 [ ivtmp.29 ])) [2 MEM <vector(4) > > double> [(double *)val_13(D) + ivtmp.29_22 * 1]+0 S32 A64]) > > ] UNSPEC_MASKMOV)) "t.c":5:17 8515 {avx_maskloadpd256} > > (nil)) > So with the mem:V4DF inside the unspec, ISTM we must treat that as a potential > full read, but we can't rely on it being a full read. I don't think UNSPEC > semantics are that it must read/consume all its operands in full, just that it > might. That might be worth a documentation clarification. > > > > > > both have (as operand of the UNSPEC) a MEM with V4DFmode (and a > > MEM_EXPR with a similarly bougs MEM_EXPR) indicating the loads > > are _not_ partial. That means the disambiguation against a store > > to an object that's smaller than V4DF is still possible. > > Setting MEM_SIZE to UNKNOWN doesn't help - that just asks to look > > at the mode. As discussed using a BLKmode MEM _might_ be a way > > out but I didn't try what will happen then (patterns would need to > > be adjusted I guess). > > > > That said, I'm happy to commit the partial fix, scrapping the > > bogus MEM_EXPRs. > > > > OK for that? > Works for me.
I'm re-testing the change and will push. If the UNSPEC uses are really OK I think we're set. We can incrementally try to restore missing alias info. Richard. > jeff > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)