------- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-09-30 14:01 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] wrong code with
-O
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, dnovillo at google dot com wrote:
> > ------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-30 12:41
> > -------
> > Diego, we seem to have a general problem with the incremental SSA updater.
> > If we rename foo$ptr in
> >
> > <bb 6>:
> > # foo$ptr_16 = PHI <foo$ptr_18(ab)(5), D.1758_3(4)>
> > p_12 = foo$ptr_16;
> > foo$ptr_19(ab) = 0B;
> > p_15 = foo$ptr_16;
> > p_4 = foo$ptr_16;
> > p_5 = foo$ptr_16;
> > D.1781_6 = foo$ptr_16->_vptr.Foo;
> > D.1782_7 = *D.1781_6;
> > OBJ_TYPE_REF(D.1782_7;foo$ptr_16->0) (foo$ptr_16);
> > goto <bb 8>;
>
> Is the symbol foo$ptr being marked for renaming? If so, that's wrong.
> A gimple register symbol cannot be marked for renaming if there are
> overlapping live ranges in its SSA names. We don't have a general
> mechanism to prevent that. Mostly because we do not keep track when
> OLRs are created. The generic SSA updating mechanism has no cheap way
> of checking that.
Yes, it is marked for renaming by the inliner. Somehow the inliner
assumes there are no OLRs:
...
The function mark PHI_RESULT of such PHI nodes for renaming; it is
safe the EH edges are abnormal and SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI
must be set. This means, that there will be no overlapping live ranges
for the underlying symbol.
This might change in future if we allow redirecting of EH edges and
we might want to change way build CFG pre-inlining to include
all the possible edges then. */
static void
update_ssa_across_eh_edges (basic_block bb)
{
edge e;
edge_iterator ei;
FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, bb->succs)
if (!e->dest->aux
|| ((basic_block)e->dest->aux)->index == ENTRY_BLOCK)
{
tree phi;
gcc_assert (e->flags & EDGE_EH);
for (phi = phi_nodes (e->dest); phi; phi = PHI_CHAIN (phi))
{
gcc_assert (SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI
(PHI_RESULT (phi)));
mark_sym_for_renaming
(SSA_NAME_VAR (PHI_RESULT (phi)));
}
}
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33572
