re PR middle-end/90796 (GCC: O2 vs O3 output differs on simple test)

Fix PR middle-end/90796

        PR middle-end/90796
        * gimple-loop-jam.c (any_access_function_variant_p): New function.
        (adjust_unroll_factor): Use it to constrain safety, new parameter.
        (tree_loop_unroll_and_jam): Adjust call and profitable unroll factor.

testsuite/
        * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.

From-SVN: r277287

gcc/ChangeLog

+2019-10-22  Michael Matz  <matz@suse.de>
+
+	PR middle-end/90796
+	* gimple-loop-jam.c (any_access_function_variant_p): New function.
+	(adjust_unroll_factor): Use it to constrain safety, new parameter.
+	(tree_loop_unroll_and_jam): Adjust call and profitable unroll factor.
+
 2019-10-22  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
 
 	PR tree-optimization/92173

gcc/gimple-loop-jam.c

@@ -360,16 +360,33 @@ fuse_loops (class loop *loop)
   rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa_1 (NULL, 0, SSA_OP_USE, loop);
 }
 
+/* Return true if any of the access functions for dataref A
+   isn't invariant with respect to loop LOOP_NEST.  */
+static bool
+any_access_function_variant_p (const struct data_reference *a,
+			       const class loop *loop_nest)
+{
+  unsigned int i;
+  vec<tree> fns = DR_ACCESS_FNS (a);
+  tree t;
+
+  FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (fns, i, t)
+    if (!evolution_function_is_invariant_p (t, loop_nest->num))
+      return true;
+
+  return false;
+}
+
 /* Returns true if the distance in DDR can be determined and adjusts
    the unroll factor in *UNROLL to make unrolling valid for that distance.
-   Otherwise return false.
+   Otherwise return false.  DDR is with respect to the outer loop of INNER.
 
    If this data dep can lead to a removed memory reference, increment
    *REMOVED and adjust *PROFIT_UNROLL to be the necessary unroll factor
    for this to happen.  */
 
 static bool
-adjust_unroll_factor (struct data_dependence_relation *ddr,
+adjust_unroll_factor (class loop *inner, struct data_dependence_relation *ddr,
 		      unsigned *unroll, unsigned *profit_unroll,
 		      unsigned *removed)
 {
@@ -392,9 +409,59 @@ adjust_unroll_factor (struct data_dependence_relation *ddr,
 	    gcc_unreachable ();
 	  else if ((unsigned)dist >= *unroll)
 	    ;
-	  else if (lambda_vector_lexico_pos (dist_v + 1, DDR_NB_LOOPS (ddr) - 1)
-		   || (lambda_vector_zerop (dist_v + 1, DDR_NB_LOOPS (ddr) - 1)
-		       && dist > 0))
+	  else if (lambda_vector_zerop (dist_v + 1, DDR_NB_LOOPS (ddr) - 1))
+	    {
+	      /* We have (a,0) with a < N, so this will be transformed into
+	         (0,0) after unrolling by N.  This might potentially be a
+		 problem, if it's not a read-read dependency.  */
+	      if (DR_IS_READ (DDR_A (ddr)) && DR_IS_READ (DDR_B (ddr)))
+		;
+	      else
+		{
+		  /* So, at least one is a write, and we might reduce the
+		     distance vector to (0,0).  This is still no problem
+		     if both data-refs are affine with respect to the inner
+		     loops.  But if one of them is invariant with respect
+		     to an inner loop our reordering implicit in loop fusion
+		     corrupts the program, as our data dependences don't
+		     capture this.  E.g. for:
+		       for (0 <= i < n)
+		         for (0 <= j < m)
+		           a[i][0] = a[i+1][0] + 2;    // (1)
+		           b[i][j] = b[i+1][j] + 2;    // (2)
+		     the distance vector for both statements is (-1,0),
+		     but exchanging the order for (2) is okay, while
+		     for (1) it is not.  To see this, write out the original
+		     accesses (assume m is 2):
+		       a i j original
+		       0 0 0 r a[1][0] b[1][0]
+		       1 0 0 w a[0][0] b[0][0]
+		       2 0 1 r a[1][0] b[1][1]
+		       3 0 1 w a[0][0] b[0][1]
+		       4 1 0 r a[2][0] b[2][0]
+		       5 1 0 w a[1][0] b[1][0]
+		     after unroll-by-2 and fusion the accesses are done in
+		     this order (from column a): 0,1, 4,5, 2,3, i.e. this:
+		       a i j transformed
+		       0 0 0 r a[1][0] b[1][0]
+		       1 0 0 w a[0][0] b[0][0]
+		       4 1 0 r a[2][0] b[2][0]
+		       5 1 0 w a[1][0] b[1][0]
+		       2 0 1 r a[1][0] b[1][1]  
+		       3 0 1 w a[0][0] b[0][1]
+		     Note how access 2 accesses the same element as access 5
+		     for array 'a' but not for array 'b'.  */
+		  if (any_access_function_variant_p (DDR_A (ddr), inner)
+		      && any_access_function_variant_p (DDR_B (ddr), inner))
+		    ;
+		  else
+		    /* And if any dataref of this pair is invariant with
+		       respect to the inner loop, we have no chance than
+		       to reduce the unroll factor.  */
+		    *unroll = dist;
+		}
+	    }
+	  else if (lambda_vector_lexico_pos (dist_v + 1, DDR_NB_LOOPS (ddr) - 1))
 	    ;
 	  else
 	    *unroll = dist;
@@ -486,7 +553,7 @@ tree_loop_unroll_and_jam (void)
 	  /* Now check the distance vector, for determining a sensible
 	     outer unroll factor, and for validity of merging the inner
 	     loop copies.  */
-	  if (!adjust_unroll_factor (ddr, &unroll_factor, &profit_unroll,
+	  if (!adjust_unroll_factor (loop, ddr, &unroll_factor, &profit_unroll,
 				     &removed))
 	    {
 	      /* Couldn't get the distance vector.  For two reads that's
@@ -506,7 +573,7 @@ tree_loop_unroll_and_jam (void)
 	 to ignore all profitability concerns and apply the transformation
 	 always.  */
       if (!PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_UNROLL_JAM_MIN_PERCENT))
-	profit_unroll = 2;
+	profit_unroll = MAX(2, profit_unroll);
       else if (removed * 100 / datarefs.length ()
 	  < (unsigned)PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_UNROLL_JAM_MIN_PERCENT))
 	profit_unroll = 1;

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

+2019-10-22  Michael Matz  <matz@suse.de>
+
+	PR middle-end/90796
+	* gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
+
 2019-10-22  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
 
 	PR tree-optimization/92173

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c

@@ -31,10 +31,10 @@ void checkb(void)
   //printf("  %d\n", sum);
 }
 
+unsigned i, j;
 #define TEST(name, body, test) \
 static void __attribute__((noinline,noclone)) name (unsigned long n, unsigned long m) \
 { \
-  unsigned long i, j; \
   for (i = 1; i < m; i++) { \
       for (j = 1; j < n; j++) { \
 	  body; \
@@ -58,9 +58,14 @@ TEST(foo3, aa[i+1][j-1]=aa[i][j] * aa[i][j] / 2, checkaa()) //notok, -1,1
 TEST(foo4, aa[i][j] = aa[i-1][j+1] * aa[i-1][j+1] / 2, checkaa()) //notok, -1,1
 TEST(foo5, aa[i][j] = aa[i+1][j+1] * aa[i+1][j+1] / 2, checkaa()) //ok, 1,1
 TEST(foo6, aa[i][j] = aa[i+1][j] * aa[i+1][j] / 2, checkaa()) //ok, -1,0
+TEST(foo61, aa[i][0] = aa[i+1][0] * aa[i+1][0] / 2, checkaa()) //notok, -1,0
+TEST(foo62, aa[i][j/2] = aa[i+1][j/2] * aa[i+1][j/2] / 2, checkaa()) //notok, not affine
+TEST(foo63, aa[i][j%2] = aa[i+1][j%2] * aa[i+1][j%2] / 2, checkaa()) //notok, not affine
 TEST(foo7, aa[i+1][j] = aa[i][j] * aa[i][j] / 2, checkaa()) //ok, 1,0
 TEST(foo9, b[j] = 3*b[j+1] + 1, checkb()) //notok, 0,-1
 TEST(foo10, b[j] = 3*b[j] + 1, checkb()) //ok, 0,0
+extern int f;
+TEST(foo11, f = b[i-1] = 1 + 3* b[i+1], checkb()) //ok, 2,0 but must reduce unroll factor to 2, (it would be incorrect with unroll-by-3, which the profitability would suggest)
 
 /* foo8 should work as well, but currently doesn't because the distance
    vectors we compute are too pessimistic.  We compute
@@ -68,6 +73,7 @@ TEST(foo10, b[j] = 3*b[j] + 1, checkb()) //ok, 0,0
    and the last one causes us to lose.  */
 TEST(foo8, b[j+1] = 3*b[j] + 1, checkb()) //ok, 0,1
 
+int f;
 unsigned int a[1024];
 unsigned int b[1024];
 unsigned int aa[16][1024];
@@ -88,10 +94,12 @@ void init(void)
     printf(" %s\n", #name); \
     init();for(i=0;i<4;i++)name##noopt(32,8); checka = checksum; \
     init();for(i=0;i<4;i++)name(32,8); \
+    if (checka != checksum) fail = 1; \
     printf("%sok %s\n", checka != checksum ? "NOT " : "", #name);
 
 int main()
 {
+  int fail = 0;
   int i;
   unsigned checka;
   RUN(foo1);
@@ -100,12 +108,18 @@ int main()
   RUN(foo4);
   RUN(foo5);
   RUN(foo6);
+  RUN(foo61);
+  RUN(foo62);
+  RUN(foo63);
   RUN(foo7);
   RUN(foo8);
   RUN(foo9);
   RUN(foo10);
-  return 0;
+  RUN(foo11);
+  if (fail)
+    __builtin_abort();
+  return fail;
 }
 
-/* Five loops should be unroll-jammed (actually six, but see above).  */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "applying unroll and jam" 5 "unrolljam" } } */
+/* Six loops should be unroll-jammed (actually seven, but see above).  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "applying unroll and jam" 6 "unrolljam" } } */