2012/2/9 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 2012/1/11 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> count despite being declared volatile and only loaded once in the source
>>>>> is loaded twice in gimple. If it were a HW register which destroys the
>>>>> device after the 2nd load without an intervening store you'd wrecked
>>>>> the device ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for explaination. I tried to flip order for lhs/rhs in
>>>> gimplify_modify_expr & co. Issue here is that for some cases we are
>>>> relying here on lhs for gimplifying rhs (is_gimple_reg_rhs_or_call vs
>>>> is_gimple_mem_rhs_or_call) and this doesn't work for cases in C++
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>>> typedef const unsigned char _Jv_Utf8Const;
>>>> typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ uaddr;
>>>>
>>>> void maybe_adjust_signature (_Jv_Utf8Const *&s, uaddr &special)
>>>> {
>>>> union {
>>>> _Jv_Utf8Const *signature;
>>>> uaddr signature_bits;
>>>> };
>>>> signature = s;
>>>> special = signature_bits & 1;
>>>> signature_bits -= special;
>>>> s = signature;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So I modified gimplify_self_mod_expr for post-inc/dec so that we use
>>>> following sequence
>>>> and add it to pre_p for it:
>>>>
>>>> tmp = lhs;
>>>> lvalue = tmp (+/-) rhs
>>>> *expr_p = tmp;
>>>
>>> As I explained this is the wrong place to fix the PR. The issue is not
>>> about self-modifying expressions but about evaluating call argument
>>> side-effects before side-effects of the lhs.
>>
>> I am testing the attached instead.
>
> Doesn't work. Btw, Kai, your patch surely breaks things if you put
> the lvalue update into the pre queue.
>
> Consider a simple
>
> a[i++] = i;
>
> you gimplify that to
>
> i.0 = i;
> D.1709 = i.0;
> i = D.1709 + 1;
> a[D.1709] = i;
>
> which is wrong.
>
> Seems we are lacking some basic pre-/post-modify testcases ...
>
> Richard.
Why, this should be wrong? In fact C specification just says that the
post-inc has to happen at least before next sequence-point. It
doesn't say that the increment has to happen after evaluation of rhs.
The produced gimple for the following C-code
int arr[128];
void foo (int i)
{
arr[i++] = i;
}
is:
foo (int i)
{
int D.1364;
D.1364 = i;
i = D.1364 + 1;
arr[D.1364] = i;
}
which looks to me from description of the C-specification correct.
Kai
