Message ID | 20220113091052.GS2646553@tucnak |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | inliner: Don't emit copy stmts for empty type parameters [PR103989] | expand |
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following patch avoids emitting a parameter copy statement when inlining > if the parameter has empty type. E.g. the gimplifier does something similar > (except that it needs to evaluate side-effects if any, which isn't the case > here): > /* For empty types only gimplify the left hand side and right hand > side as statements and throw away the assignment. Do this after > gimplify_modify_expr_rhs so we handle TARGET_EXPRs of addressable > types properly. */ > if (is_empty_type (TREE_TYPE (*from_p)) > && !want_value > /* Don't do this for calls that return addressable types, expand_call > relies on those having a lhs. */ > && !(TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (*from_p)) > && TREE_CODE (*from_p) == CALL_EXPR)) > { > gimplify_stmt (from_p, pre_p); > gimplify_stmt (to_p, pre_p); > *expr_p = NULL_TREE; > return GS_ALL_DONE; > } > Unfortunately, this patch doesn't cure the uninit warnings in that PR, > but I think is desirable anyway. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Hmm, but not emitting the initialization might cause even more such warnings for the case where the passed in argument _is_ initialized (or not visible as not, like when being a function parameter itself)? Otherwise sure, it's the same what the gimplifier does. I wonder if instead uninit warning should simply ignore uses of "empty" typed variables? OK. Thanks, Richard. > 2022-01-13 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/103989 > * tree-inline.c (setup_one_parameter): Don't copy parms with > empty type. > > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj 2022-01-11 23:11:23.422275652 +0100 > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2022-01-12 18:37:44.119950128 +0100 > @@ -3608,7 +3608,7 @@ setup_one_parameter (copy_body_data *id, > init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (def, rhs); > } > } > - else > + else if (!is_empty_type (TREE_TYPE (var))) > init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (var, rhs); > > if (bb && init_stmt) > > Jakub > >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following patch avoids emitting a parameter copy statement when inlining > > if the parameter has empty type. E.g. the gimplifier does something similar > > (except that it needs to evaluate side-effects if any, which isn't the case > > here): > > /* For empty types only gimplify the left hand side and right hand > > side as statements and throw away the assignment. Do this after > > gimplify_modify_expr_rhs so we handle TARGET_EXPRs of addressable > > types properly. */ > > if (is_empty_type (TREE_TYPE (*from_p)) > > && !want_value > > /* Don't do this for calls that return addressable types, expand_call > > relies on those having a lhs. */ > > && !(TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (*from_p)) > > && TREE_CODE (*from_p) == CALL_EXPR)) > > { > > gimplify_stmt (from_p, pre_p); > > gimplify_stmt (to_p, pre_p); > > *expr_p = NULL_TREE; > > return GS_ALL_DONE; > > } > > Unfortunately, this patch doesn't cure the uninit warnings in that PR, > > but I think is desirable anyway. > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > Hmm, but not emitting the initialization might cause even more such > warnings for the case where the passed in argument _is_ initialized > (or not visible as not, like when being a function parameter itself)? Most of the time it won't be initialized either, but sure, there can be some cases like when a larger struct is initialized with memset and then we pass a field from that as an argument. > Otherwise sure, it's the same what the gimplifier does. > > I wonder if instead uninit warning should simply ignore uses of > "empty" typed variables? Apparently it does already: /* Avoid warning about empty types such as structs with no members. The first_field() test is important for C++ where the predicate alone isn't always sufficient. */ tree rhstype = TREE_TYPE (rhs); if (POINTER_TYPE_P (rhstype)) rhstype = TREE_TYPE (rhstype); if (is_empty_type (rhstype)) return NULL_TREE; Though, the above if (POINTER_TYPE_P (rhstype)) rhstype = TREE_TYPE (rhstype); is just extremely suspicious, either we care about what type rhs has, or it is dereferenced and it must be a pointer type and we care about what it points to, but the simple fact whether rhs has a pointer type or some other type shouldn't change what we test is_empty_type on. When I was briefly looking at the assignment on which it actually warned, it actually looked not empty type related. Jakub
--- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj 2022-01-11 23:11:23.422275652 +0100 +++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2022-01-12 18:37:44.119950128 +0100 @@ -3608,7 +3608,7 @@ setup_one_parameter (copy_body_data *id, init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (def, rhs); } } - else + else if (!is_empty_type (TREE_TYPE (var))) init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (var, rhs); if (bb && init_stmt)