| Message ID | f84887dd-1d9e-e53f-b171-494426634026@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ifcvt: Fix bitpos calculation in bitfield lowering [PR107229] | expand |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion > was not > taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in > wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations > starting at the beginning of the struct. > > Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. + { + tree bf_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); + bf_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl)); + tree rep_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rep_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); + rep_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, rep_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); you can use the invariant that DECL_FIELD_OFFSET of rep_decl and field_decl are always the same. Also please use BITS_PER_UNIT instead of '8'. Richard.
Added some extra comments to describe what is going on there. On 13/10/2022 09:14, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion >> was not >> taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in >> wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations >> starting at the beginning of the struct. >> >> Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > + { > + tree bf_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, > + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field_decl), > + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); > + bf_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, > + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl)); > + tree rep_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, > + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rep_decl), > + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); > + rep_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, rep_pos, > + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); > > you can use the invariant that DECL_FIELD_OFFSET of rep_decl > and field_decl are always the same. Also please use BITS_PER_UNIT > instead of '8'. > > Richard. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67b432383d057a630746aa00af50c25fcb527d8e --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long d; + int : 8; + int : 27; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88bffb63d5e8b2d7bcdeae223f4ec6ea4f611bc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long f; + long g; + long d; + int : 8; + int : 27; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4abd8c14531b40e9dbe9802a8f9a0eabba673c9f --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long f; + long g; + long d; + int : 8; + int : 32; + int : 2; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc b/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc index e468a4659fa28a3a31c3390cf19bee65f4590b80..01637c5da08d5a2a00a495522fc9a6436a804398 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc @@ -3298,10 +3298,34 @@ get_bitfield_rep (gassign *stmt, bool write, tree *bitpos, *struct_expr = TREE_OPERAND (comp_ref, 0); if (bitpos) - *bitpos - = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, - DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl), - DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); + { + /* To calculate the bitposition of the BITFIELD_REF we have to determine + where our bitfield starts in relation to the container REP_DECL. The + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET of the original bitfield's member FIELD_DECL tells + us how many bytes from the start of the structure there are until the + start of the group of bitfield members the FIELD_DECL belongs to, + whereas DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET will tell us how many bits from that + position our actual bitfield member starts. For the container + REP_DECL adding DECL_FIELD_OFFSET and DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET will tell + us the distance between the start of the structure and the start of + the container, though the first is in bytes and the later other in + bits. With this in mind we calculate the bit position of our new + BITFIELD_REF by subtracting the number of bits between the start of + the structure and the container from the number of bits from the start + of the structure and the actual bitfield member. */ + tree bf_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, BITS_PER_UNIT)); + bf_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl)); + tree rep_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rep_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, BITS_PER_UNIT)); + rep_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, rep_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); + + *bitpos = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, rep_pos); + } return rep_decl;
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Added some extra comments to describe what is going on there. Just to note I was confused and DECL_FIELD_OFFSET can indeed be different (but then are guaranteed to be constant), so the patch looks correct. > On 13/10/2022 09:14, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion > >> was not > >> taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in > >> wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations > >> starting at the beginning of the struct. > >> > >> Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and > >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > + { > > + tree bf_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, > > + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field_decl), > > + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); > > + bf_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, > > + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl)); > > + tree rep_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, > > + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rep_decl), > > + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); > > + rep_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, rep_pos, > > + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); > > > > you can use the invariant that DECL_FIELD_OFFSET of rep_decl > > and field_decl are always the same. Also please use BITS_PER_UNIT > > instead of '8'. > > > > Richard. >
Hi Andre, > The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion > was not > taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in > wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations > starting at the beginning of the struct. > > Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I tried this patch together with the one for PR tree-optimization/107226 on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 to check if it cures the bootstrap failure reported in PR tree-optimization/107232. While this restores bootstrap, several of the new tests FAIL: +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 For vect-bitfield-read-1.c, the dump has gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining pattern def statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand _ifc__27 & 4294967294, type of def: internal gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: vectype vector(2) unsigned int gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand 1, type of def: constant gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: op not supported by target. gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:23:1: missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: bad operation or unsupported loop bound. gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ***** Analysis failed with vector mode V2SI Rainer
Hi Rainer, Thanks for reporting, I was actually expecting these! I thought about pre-empting them by using a positive filter on the tests for aarch64 and x86_64 as I knew those would pass, but I thought it would be better to let other targets report failures since then you get a testsuite that covers more targets than just what I'm able to check. Are there any sparc architectures that would support these or should I just xfail sparc*-*-* ? For instance: I also saw PR107240 for which one of the write tests fails on Power 7 BE. I'm suggesting adding an xfail for that one Kind regards, Andre On 13/10/2022 12:39, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Andre, > >> The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion >> was not >> taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in >> wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations >> starting at the beginning of the struct. >> >> Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > I tried this patch together with the one for PR tree-optimization/107226 > on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 to check if it cures the bootstrap failure > reported in PR tree-optimization/107232. While this restores bootstrap, > several of the new tests FAIL: > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > For vect-bitfield-read-1.c, the dump has > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining pattern def statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand _ifc__27 & 4294967294, type of def: internal > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: vectype vector(2) unsigned int > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: operand 1, type of def: constant > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: op not supported by target. > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:23:1: missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: bad operation or unsupported loop bound. > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ***** Analysis failed with vector mode V2SI > > Rainer >
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi Rainer, > > Thanks for reporting, I was actually expecting these! I thought about > pre-empting them by using a positive filter on the tests for aarch64 and > x86_64 as I knew those would pass, but I thought it would be better to let > other targets report failures since then you get a testsuite that covers more > targets than just what I'm able to check. > > Are there any sparc architectures that would support these or should I just > xfail sparc*-*-* ? > > For instance: I also saw PR107240 for which one of the write tests fails on > Power 7 BE. I'm suggesting adding an xfail for that one for the failure below we seem to require vectorizing shifts for which I think we have a vect_* target to check? > Kind regards, > Andre > > On 13/10/2022 12:39, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Hi Andre, > > > >> The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion > >> was not > >> taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in > >> wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations > >> starting at the beginning of the struct. > >> > >> Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and > >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > I tried this patch together with the one for PR tree-optimization/107226 > > on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 to check if it cures the bootstrap failure > > reported in PR tree-optimization/107232. While this restores bootstrap, > > several of the new tests FAIL: > > > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > > scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > > > > For vect-bitfield-read-1.c, the dump has > > > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining pattern def > > statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining statement: > > patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: > > operand _ifc__27 & 4294967294, type of def: internal > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: > > vectype vector(2) unsigned int > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: > > operand 1, type of def: constant > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: op not supported by > > target. > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:23:1: missed: not vectorized: relevant > > stmt not supported: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: bad operation or > > unsupported loop bound. > > gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ***** Analysis failed with > > vector mode V2SI > > > > Rainer > > >
On 13/10/2022 15:15, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > >> Hi Rainer, >> >> Thanks for reporting, I was actually expecting these! I thought about >> pre-empting them by using a positive filter on the tests for aarch64 and >> x86_64 as I knew those would pass, but I thought it would be better to let >> other targets report failures since then you get a testsuite that covers more >> targets than just what I'm able to check. >> >> Are there any sparc architectures that would support these or should I just >> xfail sparc*-*-* ? >> >> For instance: I also saw PR107240 for which one of the write tests fails on >> Power 7 BE. I'm suggesting adding an xfail for that one > for the failure below we seem to require vectorizing shifts for which I > think we have a vect_* target to check? 'vect_shift' no sparc on the list of supported targets, so that should do it, I'll add it when I add my fix for powerpc too. > >> Kind regards, >> Andre >> >> On 13/10/2022 12:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>>> The bitposition calculation for the bitfield lowering in loop if conversion >>>> was not >>>> taking DECL_FIELD_OFFSET into account, which meant that it would result in >>>> wrong bitpositions for bitfields that did not end up having representations >>>> starting at the beginning of the struct. >>>> >>>> Bootstrappend and regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and >>>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. >>> I tried this patch together with the one for PR tree-optimization/107226 >>> on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 to check if it cures the bootstrap failure >>> reported in PR tree-optimization/107232. While this restores bootstrap, >>> several of the new tests FAIL: >>> >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects >>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-write-5.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> >>> For vect-bitfield-read-1.c, the dump has >>> >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining pattern def >>> statement: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ==> examining statement: >>> patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: >>> operand _ifc__27 & 4294967294, type of def: internal >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: >>> vectype vector(2) unsigned int >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: vect_is_simple_use: >>> operand 1, type of def: constant >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: op not supported by >>> target. >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:23:1: missed: not vectorized: relevant >>> stmt not supported: patt_31 = patt_30 >> 1; >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: missed: bad operation or >>> unsupported loop bound. >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-1.c:25:23: note: ***** Analysis failed with >>> vector mode V2SI >>> >>> Rainer >>>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67b432383d057a630746aa00af50c25fcb527d8e --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-1.c @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long d; + int : 8; + int : 27; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88bffb63d5e8b2d7bcdeae223f4ec6ea4f611bc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-2.c @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long f; + long g; + long d; + int : 8; + int : 27; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4abd8c14531b40e9dbe9802a8f9a0eabba673c9f --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr107229-3.c @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* PR tree-optimization/107229. */ + +int a, c; +struct { + long f; + long g; + long d; + int : 8; + int : 32; + int : 2; + int e : 21; +} f; +void g(int b) { a = a & 1; } +int main() { + while (c) + g(f.e); + return 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc b/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc index e468a4659fa28a3a31c3390cf19bee65f4590b80..33160ddef80cbd75c2a927fb50bddd792bbf5dd4 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-if-conv.cc @@ -3298,10 +3298,20 @@ get_bitfield_rep (gassign *stmt, bool write, tree *bitpos, *struct_expr = TREE_OPERAND (comp_ref, 0); if (bitpos) - *bitpos - = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, - DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl), - DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); + { + tree bf_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); + bf_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field_decl)); + tree rep_pos = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, bitsizetype, + DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rep_decl), + build_int_cst (bitsizetype, 8)); + rep_pos = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, rep_pos, + DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rep_decl)); + + *bitpos = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, bitsizetype, bf_pos, rep_pos); + } return rep_decl;