From 6a9678f0b30d36ae13259ad635e175a1e24917a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aldy Hernandez Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 12:37:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] path solver: Prefer range_of_expr instead of range_on_edge. The range_of_expr method provides better caching than range_on_edge. If we have a statement, we can just it and avoid the range_on_edge dance. Plus we can use all the range_of_expr fanciness. Tested on x86-64 and ppc64le Linux with the usual regstrap. I also verified that the before and after number of threads was the same or greater in a suite of .ii files from a bootstrap. gcc/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/102943 * gimple-range-path.cc (path_range_query::range_on_path_entry): Prefer range_of_expr unless there are no statements in the BB. --- gcc/gimple-range-path.cc | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc index 4230988..9175651 100644 --- a/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc +++ b/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc @@ -135,10 +135,24 @@ void path_range_query::range_on_path_entry (irange &r, tree name) { gcc_checking_assert (defined_outside_path (name)); - int_range_max tmp; basic_block entry = entry_bb (); - bool changed = false; + // Prefer to use range_of_expr if we have a statement to look at, + // since it has better caching than range_on_edge. + gimple *last = last_stmt (entry); + if (last) + { + if (m_ranger.range_of_expr (r, name, last)) + return; + gcc_unreachable (); + } + + // If we have no statement, look at all the incoming ranges to the + // block. This can happen when we're querying a block with only an + // outgoing edge (no statement but the fall through edge), but for + // which we can determine a range on entry to the block. + int_range_max tmp; + bool changed = false; r.set_undefined (); for (unsigned i = 0; i < EDGE_COUNT (entry->preds); ++i) { -- 2.7.4