On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2011/5/26 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 2011/5/26 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>:
>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Richard Guenther
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this patch ensures that after gimplification also comparison expressions
>>>>>> using FE's boolean_type_node. As we need to deal here with C/C++'s
>>>>>> (obj-c/c++ and java's), Ada's, and Fortran's specific boolean types,
>>>>>> this patch alters some checks in tree-cfg for Ada's sake, and we need to
>>>>>> deal in fold-const about type-conversion of comparisons special.
>>>>>> Additionally it takes care that in forwprop pass we don't do type
>>>>>> hoising for boolean types.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ChangeLog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011-05-26 Kai Tietz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * gimplify.c (gimple_boolify): Boolify all comparison
>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>> (gimplify_expr): Use 'useless_type_conversion_p' for comparing
>>>>>> org_type with boolean_type_node for TRUTH-expressions and
>>>>>> comparisons.
>>>>>> * fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc): Handle comparison conversions
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> boolean-type special.
>>>>>> * tree-cfg.c (verify_gimple_comparison): Adjust check for
>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>> or compatible types.
>>>>>> (verify_gimple_assign_unary): Likewise.
>>>>>> * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (forward_propagate_comparison): Handle
>>>>>> boolean case special.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (multilib) with regression test for all
>>>>>> standard languages (C, C++, Obj-C, Fortran, Java) plus Obj-C++ and Ada.
>>>>>> Ok for apply?
>>>>>
>>>>> It obviously isn't ok to apply before a patch has gone in that will
>>>>> resolve
>>>>> all of the FAILs you specify. Comments on the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -7281,9 +7284,28 @@ gimplify_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq
>>>>> plain wrong if bitfields are involved. */
>>>>> {
>>>>> tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1));
>>>>> + tree org_type = TREE_TYPE (*expr_p);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!useless_type_conversion_p (org_type,
>>>>> boolean_type_node))
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + TREE_TYPE (*expr_p) = boolean_type_node;
>>>>> + *expr_p = fold_convert_loc (saved_location,
>>>>> org_type, *expr_p);
>>>>> + ret = GS_OK;
>>>>> + goto dont_recalculate;
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above should be only done for !AGGREGATE_TYPE_P. Probably then
>>>>> the strange dont_recalcuate goto can go away as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (type))
>>>>> - goto expr_2;
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + enum gimplify_status r0, r1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + r0 = gimplify_expr (&TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 0),
>>>>> pre_p,
>>>>> + post_p, is_gimple_val,
>>>>> fb_rvalue);
>>>>> + r1 = gimplify_expr (&TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1),
>>>>> pre_p,
>>>>> + post_p, is_gimple_val,
>>>>> fb_rvalue);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = MIN (r0, r1);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> why change this?
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -7641,6 +7641,12 @@ fold_unary_loc (location_t loc, enum tre
>>>>> }
>>>>> else if (COMPARISON_CLASS_P (arg0))
>>>>> {
>>>>> + /* Don't optimize type change, if op0 is of kind
>>>>> boolean_type_node.
>>>>> + Otherwise this will lead to race-condition on gimplification
>>>>> + trying to boolify comparison expression. */
>>>>> + if (TREE_TYPE (op0) == boolean_type_node)
>>>>> + return NULL_TREE;
>>>>> +
>>>>> if (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>>>>> {
>>>>> arg0 = copy_node (arg0);
>>>>>
>>>>> The code leading here looks quite strange to me ...
>>>>>
>>>>> tree
>>>>> fold_unary_loc (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, tree op0)
>>>>> {
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_unary)
>>>>> {
>>>>> ...
>>>>> else if (COMPARISON_CLASS_P (arg0))
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>>>>> {
>>>>> arg0 = copy_node (arg0);
>>>>> TREE_TYPE (arg0) = type;
>>>>> return arg0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> else if (TREE_CODE (type) != INTEGER_TYPE)
>>>>> return fold_build3_loc (loc, COND_EXPR, type, arg0,
>>>>> fold_build1_loc (loc, code, type,
>>>>> integer_one_node),
>>>>> fold_build1_loc (loc, code, type,
>>>>> integer_zero_node));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> so, for any tcc_unary, like NEGATE_EXPR, with BOOLEAN_TYPE,
>>>>> return arg0 ... sure. Same for the 2nd case. ~ (a == b) isn't
>>>>> the same as a == b ? ~1 : ~0. I _suppose_ those cases were
>>>>> ment for CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (code) instead of all of tcc_unary,
>>>>> in which case they should be dropped or moved below where we
>>>>> handle conversions explicitly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said - does anyone remember anything about that above code?
>>>>> Trying to do some svn blame history tracking now ...
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the patch continues...
>>>>
>>>> @@ -3208,7 +3208,10 @@ verify_gimple_comparison (tree type, tre
>>>> && (!POINTER_TYPE_P (op0_type)
>>>> || !POINTER_TYPE_P (op1_type)
>>>> || TYPE_MODE (op0_type) != TYPE_MODE (op1_type)))
>>>> - || !INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> + || !(TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
>>>> + || (TREE_TYPE (type) && TREE_CODE (type) == INTEGER_TYPE
>>>> + && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (type)) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>>>> + || (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && TYPE_PRECISION (type) == 1)))
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> why that strange TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE ())) thing again? Drop
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> @@ -3352,6 +3355,8 @@ verify_gimple_assign_unary (gimple stmt)
>>>> case TRUTH_NOT_EXPR:
>>>> /* We require two-valued operand types. */
>>>> if (!(TREE_CODE (rhs1_type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
>>>> + || (TREE_TYPE (rhs1_type) && TREE_CODE (rhs1_type) ==
>>>> INTEGER_TYPE
>>>> + && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (rhs1_type)) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>>>> || (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (rhs1_type)
>>>> && TYPE_PRECISION (rhs1_type) == 1)))
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> likewise.
>>>
>>> Well, those checks are necessary for Ada and its crippled
>>> boolean_type_node and computed boolean-based integer construct. Ada
>>> derives here the boolean-type to an integer with range 0..1 and the
>>> only way to find out that it is in fact such a beast is by looking
>>> into TREE_TYPE of type. See here Ada's code for getting base-type
>>> information.
>>> As such things are treated as compatible they can appear for TRUTH_NOT
>>> expressions and comparisons.
>>
>> No they can't as we boolify them.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> Well, they do. Test can prove this by running fortran's dg tests.
>
> The logic we do in gimplification is:
>
> 1) save original type of expression.
> 2) set expression's type to boolean_type_node.
> 3) if conversion from boolean_type_node to saved type isn't useless
> (and here we have the issue about Fortran's different booleans with
> different modes, which make those kinds not useless) then cast
> expression's result to original type and retry gimplification.
> 4) Otherwise gimplify operands and continue.
You don't make sense. Btw,
>>>> + if (!useless_type_conversion_p (org_type,
>>>> boolean_type_node))
>>>> + {
>>>> + TREE_TYPE (*expr_p) = boolean_type_node;
>>>> + *expr_p = fold_convert_loc (saved_location, org_type,
is bogus it should be
TREE_TYPE (*expr_p) = boolean_type_node;
if (!useless_type_conversion_p (org_type, boolean_type_node))
{
*expr_p = fold_convert_loc (saved_location, org_type,
...
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> Kai
>
