From 3358c24a32129f6dafa9f7af2dfeab3bca9d68c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Biener Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:39:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Improve compute_control_dep_chain documentation The following refactors compute_control_dep_chain slightly by inlining is_loop_exit and factoring the check on the loop invariant condition. It also adds a comment as of how I understand the code and it's current problem. * gimple-predicate-analysis.cc (compute_control_dep_chain): Inline is_loop_exit and refactor, add comment about loop exits. --- gcc/gimple-predicate-analysis.cc | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/gimple-predicate-analysis.cc b/gcc/gimple-predicate-analysis.cc index 32542f930571..934e9516e7b2 100644 --- a/gcc/gimple-predicate-analysis.cc +++ b/gcc/gimple-predicate-analysis.cc @@ -1110,6 +1110,10 @@ compute_control_dep_chain (basic_block dom_bb, const_basic_block dep_bb, vec &cur_cd_chain, unsigned *num_calls, unsigned in_region = 0, unsigned depth = 0) { + /* In our recursive calls this doesn't happen. */ + if (single_succ_p (dom_bb)) + return false; + if (*num_calls > (unsigned)param_uninit_control_dep_attempts) { if (dump_file) @@ -1167,7 +1171,21 @@ compute_control_dep_chain (basic_block dom_bb, const_basic_block dep_bb, basic_block cd_bb = e->dest; cur_cd_chain.safe_push (e); while (!dominated_by_p (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, dom_bb, cd_bb) - || is_loop_exit (dom_bb, cd_bb)) + /* We want to stop when the CFG merges back from the + branch in dom_bb. The post-dominance check alone + falls foul of the case of a loop exit test branch + where the path on the loop exit post-dominates + the branch block. + The following catches this but will not allow + exploring the post-dom path further. For the + outermost recursion this means we will fail to + reach dep_bb while for others it means at least + dropping the loop exit predicate from the path + which is problematic as it increases the domain + spanned by the resulting predicate. + See gcc.dg/uninit-pred-11.c for the first case + and PR106754 for the second. */ + || single_pred_p (cd_bb)) { if (cd_bb == dep_bb) { @@ -1187,9 +1205,10 @@ compute_control_dep_chain (basic_block dom_bb, const_basic_block dep_bb, break; /* Check if DEP_BB is indirectly control-dependent on DOM_BB. */ - if (compute_control_dep_chain (cd_bb, dep_bb, cd_chains, - num_chains, cur_cd_chain, - num_calls, in_region, depth + 1)) + if (!single_succ_p (cd_bb) + && compute_control_dep_chain (cd_bb, dep_bb, cd_chains, + num_chains, cur_cd_chain, + num_calls, in_region, depth + 1)) { found_cd_chain = true; break; -- 2.47.2