I don't see a reason to add this new function.  I would just inline it
into noce_can_store_speculate_p, replacing the call to
memory_modified_in_p.  And I'm not sure I see a reason to change the
comment for memory_modified_in_p, it seems to already be accurate.

My comment was just clearer to me, but probably because I wrote it :). I have revert it.


Clearly we could consider the possibility of a PARALLEL of SET insns,
but of course most the compiler won't handle that anyhow.  I suppose
that would be a reason to use memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p, but in
that case you might as well handle the PARALLEL case now.

Done.  Is this what you had in mind?

Tested on x86-64 Linux by looking at the generated assembly for the testcase with a dominating write and without. Bootstrap and regtested as well.

        PR rtl-optimization/54900
        * ifcvt.c (noce_can_store_speculate_p): Call
        memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p.
        * alias.c (memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p): New.
        (set_dest_equal_p): New.

diff --git a/gcc/alias.c b/gcc/alias.c
index 0c6a744..f28e9a6 100644
--- a/gcc/alias.c
+++ b/gcc/alias.c
@@ -2760,6 +2760,39 @@ memory_modified_in_insn_p (const_rtx mem, const_rtx insn)
   return memory_modified;
 }
 
+/* Return TRUE if the destination of a set is rtx identical to
+   ITEM.  */
+static inline bool
+set_dest_equal_p (const_rtx set, const_rtx item)
+{
+  rtx dest = SET_DEST (set);
+  return rtx_equal_p (dest, item);
+}
+
+/* Like memory_modified_in_insn_p, but return TRUE if INSN will
+   *SURELY* modify the memory contents of MEM.  */
+bool
+memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p (const_rtx mem, const_rtx insn)
+{
+  if (!INSN_P (insn))
+    return false;
+  insn = PATTERN (insn);
+  if (GET_CODE (insn) == SET)
+    return set_dest_equal_p (insn, mem);
+  else if (GET_CODE (insn) == PARALLEL)
+    {
+      int i;
+      for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (insn, 0); i++)
+       {
+         rtx sub = XVECEXP (insn, 0, i);
+         if (GET_CODE (sub) == SET
+             &&  set_dest_equal_p (sub, mem))
+           return true;
+       }
+    }
+  return false;
+}
+
 /* Initialize the aliasing machinery.  Initialize the REG_KNOWN_VALUE
    array.  */
 
diff --git a/gcc/ifcvt.c b/gcc/ifcvt.c
index 2f486a2..659e464 100644
--- a/gcc/ifcvt.c
+++ b/gcc/ifcvt.c
@@ -2415,7 +2415,7 @@ noce_can_store_speculate_p (basic_block top_bb, const_rtx 
mem)
                  || (CALL_P (insn) && (!RTL_CONST_CALL_P (insn)))))
            return false;
 
-         if (memory_modified_in_insn_p (mem, insn))
+         if (memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p (mem, insn))
            return true;
          if (modified_in_p (XEXP (mem, 0), insn))
            return false;
diff --git a/gcc/rtl.h b/gcc/rtl.h
index cd5d435..d449ee1 100644
--- a/gcc/rtl.h
+++ b/gcc/rtl.h
@@ -2614,6 +2614,7 @@ extern void init_alias_analysis (void);
 extern void end_alias_analysis (void);
 extern void vt_equate_reg_base_value (const_rtx, const_rtx);
 extern bool memory_modified_in_insn_p (const_rtx, const_rtx);
+extern bool memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p (const_rtx, const_rtx);
 extern bool may_be_sp_based_p (rtx);
 extern rtx gen_hard_reg_clobber (enum machine_mode, unsigned int);
 extern rtx get_reg_known_value (unsigned int);

Reply via email to