On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Andrew Pinski wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:04 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > The PR indicates a very specific issue with regard to SSA coalescing
> > failures because there's a pre IV increment loop exit test.  While
> > IVOPTs created the desired IL we later simplify the exit test into
> > the undesirable form again.  The following fixes this up during RTL
> > expansion where we try to improve coalescing of IVs.  That seems
> > easier that trying to avoid the simplification with some weird
> > heuristics (it could also have been written this way).
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> >
> > OK for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> >
> >         PR tree-optimization/86270
> >         * tree-outof-ssa.cc (insert_backedge_copies): Pattern
> >         match a single conflict in a loop condition and adjust
> >         that avoiding the conflict if possible.
> >
> >         * gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c: Adjust to check for no reg-reg
> >         copies as well.
> > ---
> >  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c |  3 ++
> >  gcc/tree-outof-ssa.cc                   | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c 
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c
> > index 68562446fa4..89b9aeb317a 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr86270.c
> > @@ -13,3 +13,6 @@ test ()
> >
> >  /* Check we do not split the backedge but keep nice loop form.  */
> >  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "L\[0-9\]+:" 2 } } */
> > +/* Check we do not end up with reg-reg moves from a pre-increment IV
> > +   exit test.  */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "mov\[lq\]\?\t%\?\[er\].x, %\?\[er\].x" 
> > } } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-outof-ssa.cc b/gcc/tree-outof-ssa.cc
> > index d340d4ba529..f285c81599e 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-outof-ssa.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-outof-ssa.cc
> > @@ -1259,10 +1259,9 @@ insert_backedge_copies (void)
> >                   if (gimple_nop_p (def)
> >                       || gimple_code (def) == GIMPLE_PHI)
> >                     continue;
> > -                 tree name = copy_ssa_name (result);
> > -                 gimple *stmt = gimple_build_assign (name, result);
> >                   imm_use_iterator imm_iter;
> >                   gimple *use_stmt;
> > +                 auto_vec<use_operand_p, 8> uses;
> >                   /* The following matches trivially_conflicts_p.  */
> >                   FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (use_stmt, imm_iter, result)
> >                     {
> > @@ -1273,11 +1272,51 @@ insert_backedge_copies (void)
> >                         {
> >                           use_operand_p use;
> >                           FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_ON_STMT (use, imm_iter)
> > -                           SET_USE (use, name);
> > +                           uses.safe_push (use);
> >                         }
> >                     }
> > -                 gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (def);
> > -                 gsi_insert_before (&gsi, stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> > +                 /* When there is just a conflicting statement try to
> > +                    adjust that to refer to the new definition.
> > +                    In particular for now handle a conflict with the
> > +                    use in a (exit) condition with a NE compare,
> > +                    replacing a pre-IV-increment compare with a
> > +                    post-IV-increment one.  */
> > +                 if (uses.length () == 1
> > +                     && is_a <gcond *> (USE_STMT (uses[0]))
> > +                     && gimple_cond_code (USE_STMT (uses[0])) == NE_EXPR
> > +                     && is_gimple_assign (def)
> > +                     && gimple_assign_rhs1 (def) == result
> > +                     && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (def) == PLUS_EXPR
> > +                         || gimple_assign_rhs_code (def) == MINUS_EXPR
> > +                         || gimple_assign_rhs_code (def) == 
> > POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
> > +                     && TREE_CODE (gimple_assign_rhs2 (def)) == 
> > INTEGER_CST)
> > +                   {
> > +                     gcond *cond = as_a <gcond *> (USE_STMT (uses[0]));
> > +                     tree *adj;
> > +                     if (gimple_cond_lhs (cond) == result)
> > +                       adj = gimple_cond_rhs_ptr (cond);
> > +                     else
> > +                       adj = gimple_cond_lhs_ptr (cond);
> > +                     tree name = copy_ssa_name (result);
> 
> Should this be `copy_ssa_name (*adj)`? Since the new name is based on
> `*adj` rather than based on the result.

Good point, I've adjusted this in my local copy.

Richard.


> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
> 
> > +                     gimple *stmt
> > +                       = gimple_build_assign (name,
> > +                                              gimple_assign_rhs_code (def),
> > +                                              *adj, gimple_assign_rhs2 
> > (def));
> > +                     gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (cond);
> > +                     gsi_insert_before (&gsi, stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> > +                     *adj = name;
> > +                     SET_USE (uses[0], arg);
> > +                     update_stmt (cond);
> > +                   }
> > +                 else
> > +                   {
> > +                     tree name = copy_ssa_name (result);
> > +                     gimple *stmt = gimple_build_assign (name, result);
> > +                     gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (def);
> > +                     gsi_insert_before (&gsi, stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> > +                     for (auto use : uses)
> > +                       SET_USE (use, name);
> > +                   }
> >                 }
> >             }
> >         }
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> 

-- 
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)

Reply via email to