|
|
| Bugzilla Link |
589 |
| Created on |
Nov 11, 2009 17:02 |
| Version |
1.00beta |
| OS |
Linux |
| Architecture |
PC |
| Attachments |
crud2.sac |
Extended Description
Created an attachment (id=596)
Source code to reproduce fault
The attached (unlikely) code exhibits several interesting properties.
When compiled with Build #16534 (and probably many earlier ones...),
sac2c -b11 crud2.sac
produces this function:
-----------------------------------------------------
_pinl_622__flat_792 = true;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1 = with {
([ 0 ] <= _pinl_623_iv__SSA0_1=[_pinl_626__eat_11] (IDXS:_wlidx_1240__pinl_624_res__SSA0_1) < [ 8 ])
{
/* empty */
} : _pinl_622__flat_792 ; ,
([ 8 ] <= _pinl_623_iv__SSA0_1=[_pinl_626__eat_11] (IDXS:_wlidx_1240__pinl_624_res__SSA0_1) < [ 16 ])
{
/* empty */
} : _pinl_622__flat_792 ;
} :
genarray( [ 16 ], IDX(_wlidx_1240__pinl_624_res__SSA0_1));
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure if this gets merged back into a single WL in the back end
or not. However, it does look weird.
Even weirder is what we get when compiled with:
sac2c -b11 -extrema -doawlf -nowlf crud2.sac
------------------------------------------------------
_pinl_612_res = with {
(_flatg_982 <= _pinl_610_iv=[_pinl_625__eat_10] (IDXS:_wlidx_1375__pinl_612_res) < _flatg_980)
{
/* empty */
} : _pinl_611__flat_784 ; ,
(_flatg_980 <= _pinl_610_iv=[_pinl_625__eat_10] (IDXS:_wlidx_1375__pinl_612_res) < _flatg_981)
{
/* empty */
} : _pinl_513__flat_780 ;
} :
genarray( [ 16 ], _pinl_513__flat_780, IDX(_wlidx_1375__pinl_612_res));
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_1 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_612_res, _pinl_598__flat_777, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1382 = 9;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_2 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_1, _ivesplit_1382, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1383 = 10;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_3 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_2, _ivesplit_1383, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1384 = 11;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_4 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_3, _ivesplit_1384, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1385 = 12;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_5 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_4, _ivesplit_1385, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1386 = 13;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_6 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_5, _ivesplit_1386, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1387 = 14;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_7 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_6, _ivesplit_1387, _pinl_611__flat_784);
_ivesplit_1388 = 15;
_pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_8 = _idx_modarray_AxSxS_( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_7, _ivesplit_1388, _pinl_611__flat_784);
return( _pinl_624_res__SSA0_1__SSA4_8);
}
-----------------------------------
Doesn't look very healthy from a performance viewpoint.
I'm not going to be able to look into it right away, but
wanted to note the problem, while it's fresh in my mind.
