[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |12.0 Last reconfirmed||2021-05-06 Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|wrong code at -O1 and above |[12 Regression] wrong code ||at -O1 and above since ||r12-434 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org, ||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r12-434-g93f8cb4965cebee125f96376367f05e18ee5749b
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's SRA writing into a TREE_READONLY parameter:
void g (const struct a h)
{
const h$b;
int c.0_1;
int _2;
int c.1_3;
_4;
int _5;
_6;
int _7;
:
h$b_14 = MEM[(struct a *)&h].b;
goto ; [INV]
:
MEM[(struct a *)&h].b = h$b_14;
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- Mine.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- I proposed a patch to address this on the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570267.html
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > I proposed a patch to address this on the mailing list: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570267.html Thanks!
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca9bb74a5f856ccdceb4797f18b0a4ac8f49d069 commit r12-782-gca9bb74a5f856ccdceb4797f18b0a4ac8f49d069 Author: Martin Jambor Date: Thu May 13 23:26:32 2021 +0200 tree-sra: Avoid refreshing into const base decls (PR 100453) When SRA transforms an assignment where the RHS is an aggregate decl that it creates replacements for, the (least efficient) fallback method of dealing with them is to store all the replacements back into the original decl and then let the original assignment takes itc sourse. That of course should not need to be done for TREE_READONLY bases which cannot change contents. The SRA code handled this situation in one of two necessary places but only for DECL_IN_CONSTANT_POOL const decls, this patch modifies both to check TREE_READONLY. gcc/ChangeLog: 2021-05-12 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/100453 * tree-sra.c (sra_modify_assign): All const base accesses do not need refreshing, not just those from decl_pool. (sra_modify_assign): Do not refresh into a const base decl. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2021-05-12 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/100453 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr100453.c: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor --- Fixed on trunk. Miscompilation has only been observed there so hopefully that is enough.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- Martin, did you test Ada with your patch? It appears that it either causes bootstrap to fail (PR bootstrap/100597) or miscompiles the Ada compiler: === acats tests === FAIL: c41325a FAIL: c45347d FAIL: c74402a FAIL: c95085m FAIL: cc3601a === acats Summary === # of expected passes2323 # of unexpected failures5 Native configuration is x86_64-suse-linux-gnu === gnat tests === Running target unix FAIL: gnat.dg/addr12.adb (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gnat.dg/addr12.adb compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gnat.dg/addr12_a.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/bip_overlay.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/global.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/spark1.adb (test for errors, line 8) FAIL: gnat.dg/spark1.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/sync2.adb (test for excess errors) FAIL: gnat.dg/synchronized1.adb (test for excess errors) === gnat Summary === # of expected passes3360 # of unexpected failures8 # of expected failures 23 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 3 Most parameters are read-only in Ada so it's quite a good testbed...
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af42043e6618e69187b47f37dac870763c01e20f commit r12-809-gaf42043e6618e69187b47f37dac870763c01e20f Author: Martin Jambor Date: Sat May 15 10:11:12 2021 +0200 Revert "tree-sra: Avoid refreshing into const base decls (PR 100453)" This reverts commit ca9bb74a5f856ccdceb4797f18b0a4ac8f49d069. ...because of Ada issues I did not catch with original testing. gcc/ChangeLog: 2021-05-12 Martin Jambor Revert: PR tree-optimization/100453 * tree-sra.c (sra_modify_assign): All const base accesses do not need refreshing, not just those from decl_pool. (sra_modify_assign): Do not refresh into a const base decl. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2021-05-12 Martin Jambor Revert: PR tree-optimization/100453 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr100453.c: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor --- Only now I realized I do not test Ada on aarch64 (which I used to test the const_decl_pool stuff). I have reverted the patch to fix bootstrap and will have another look at this next week. Sorry for the breakage.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- *** Bug 100601 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||suochenyao at 163 dot com --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 100994 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor --- Another attempt to fix this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572814.html
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 101080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7deee423f993bee8ee440f6fe0c9126c316c64b commit r12-1529-gd7deee423f993bee8ee440f6fe0c9126c316c64b Author: Martin Jambor Date: Wed Jun 16 13:18:46 2021 +0200 tree-sra: Do not refresh readonly decls (PR 100453) When SRA transforms an assignment where the RHS is an aggregate decl that it creates replacements for, the (least efficient) fallback method of dealing with them is to store all the replacements back into the original decl and then let the original assignment takes its course. That of course should not need to be done for TREE_READONLY bases which cannot change contents. The SRA code handled this situation only for DECL_IN_CONSTANT_POOL const decls, this patch modifies the check so that it tests for TREE_READONLY and I also looked at all other callers of generate_subtree_copies and added checks to another one dealing with the same exact situation and one which deals with it in a non-assignment context. gcc/ChangeLog: 2021-06-11 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/100453 * tree-sra.c (create_access): Disqualify any const candidates which are written to. (sra_modify_expr): Do not store sub-replacements back to a const base. (handle_unscalarized_data_in_subtree): Likewise. (sra_modify_assign): Likewise. Earlier, use TREE_READONLy test instead of constant_decl_p. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2021-06-10 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/100453 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr100453.c: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/100453] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above since r12-434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor --- Fixed.
