On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:58 AM Richard Biener
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 12:20 AM Andrea Pinski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > While fixing PR 126729 and PR 126570, I found it was hard
> > to figure out if REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER was set on a MEM_REF.
> > Even for the gimple fe was able to set it.
> > This adds support to the gimple fe and also outputs
> > REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER for MEM_REF in gimple mode.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x84_64-linux-gnu.
> >
> > gcc/c/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * gimple-parser.cc (c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression):
> > Allow for an optional `, 1/0` in front of the cb pair
> > for MEM_REF.
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * tree-pretty-print.cc (dump_mem_ref): Dump
> > REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER
> > if it was set.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c: New test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Pinski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c | 16 ++++++++++++++
> > gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc | 6 ++++++
> > 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc b/gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc
> > index 0fcb9ead83d..59cb29f420c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/c/gimple-parser.cc
> > @@ -1530,6 +1530,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (gimple_parser
> > &parser)
> > /* __MEM '<' type-name [ ',' number ] '>'
> > '(' [ '(' type-name ')' ] unary-expression
> > [ '+' number ]
> > + [ ',' number ]
>
> But this breaks existing IL, no? Also, why a number ... and why in
> the deref part?
> I'd have expected this to be part of the <type-name ...> part,
> alongside the alignment
> specification?
That said, I'd prefer
__MEM '<' type-name [ ',' ( number | 'be' | 'le' )+] '>'
aka __MEM <int, be> or __MEM <int, 8, be> or __MEM <int, be, 8>
to be target independent which is useful for runtime testcases I think,
a bit more difficult for scan-dump as I of course would elide 'le'
on little-end targets. So maybe also allow 'se' (swapped endianess)?
>
> > [ ',' number ':' number ] ')' */
> > location_t loc = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->location;
> > c_parser_consume_token (parser);
> > @@ -1542,6 +1543,8 @@ c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (gimple_parser
> > &parser)
> > index2.value = NULL_TREE;
> > unsigned short clique = 0;
> > unsigned short base = 0;
> > + bool reverse_order = false;
> > + struct c_expr ro;
> > if (c_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN, "expected
> > %<(%>"))
> > {
> > tree alias_type = NULL_TREE;
> > @@ -1626,10 +1629,29 @@ c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (gimple_parser
> > &parser)
> > if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_COMMA))
> > {
> > struct c_expr cl, ba;
> > + bool has_clb = true;
> > c_parser_consume_token (parser);
> > cl = c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
> > - if (c_parser_require (parser,
> > - CPP_COLON, "expected %<:%>"))
> > + if (!c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_COLON))
> > + {
> > + ro = cl;
> > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT tmp = 0;
> > + if (!tree_fits_uhwi_p (ro.value)
> > + || (tmp = tree_to_uhwi (ro.value)) > 1)
> > + error_at (ro.get_start (),
> > + "invalid reverse order value");
> > + reverse_order = tmp;
> > + has_clb = false;
> > + if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_COMMA))
> > + {
> > + c_parser_consume_token (parser);
> > + cl = c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression
> > (parser);
> > + has_clb = true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (has_clb
> > + && c_parser_require (parser,
> > + CPP_COLON, "expected %<:%>"))
> > {
> > ba = c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
> > if (!tree_fits_uhwi_p (cl.value)
> > @@ -1665,6 +1687,14 @@ c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (gimple_parser
> > &parser)
> > MR_DEPENDENCE_CLIQUE (expr.value) = clique;
> > MR_DEPENDENCE_BASE (expr.value) = base;
> > }
> > + if (reverse_order)
> > + {
> > + if (TREE_CODE (expr.value) == MEM_REF)
> > + REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER (expr.value) = reverse_order;
> > + else
> > + error_at (ro.get_start (),
> > + "target mem ref cannot have reverse order");
> > + }
> > break;
> > }
> > else if (strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id), "__VIEW_CONVERT") == 0)
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..296c088a2a0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-59.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fgimple" } */
> > +
> > +/* test REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER parsing of gimple fe. */
> > +
> > +int __GIMPLE (ssa,guessed_local(1073741824))
> > +f2 (void * a, bool b, bool bb)
> > +{
> > + int _1;
> > +
> > + __BB(2,guessed_local(1073741824)):
> > + _1 = __MEM <int> (a_5(D), 1);
> > + return _1;
> > +
> > +}
> > +
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc b/gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc
> > index bd60e5c15c1..316945c00ed 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc
> > @@ -2075,6 +2075,12 @@ dump_mem_ref (pretty_printer *pp, tree node, int
> > spc, dump_flags_t flags)
> > spc, flags | TDF_SLIM, false);
> > }
> > }
> > + if (TREE_CODE (node) == MEM_REF
> > + && REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER (node))
> > + {
> > + pp_string (pp, ", ");
> > + pp_decimal_int (pp, REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER (node));
> > + }
> > if (MR_DEPENDENCE_CLIQUE (node) != 0)
> > {
> > pp_string (pp, ", ");
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
