On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 04:39 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > This introduces a :s flag to match expressions which enforces
> > the expression to have a single-use if(!) the simplified
> > expression is larger than one statement.
>
> This seems to be missing documentation in match-and-simplify.texi.
Fixed as follows, built and inspected .info and .pdf on x86_64-linux,
applied.
Richard.
2015-09-14 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
* doc/match-and-simplify.texi: Fixup some formatting issues
and document the 's' flag.
Index: gcc/doc/match-and-simplify.texi
===================================================================
--- gcc/doc/match-and-simplify.texi (revision 227737)
+++ gcc/doc/match-and-simplify.texi (working copy)
@@ -186,20 +186,36 @@ preprocessor directives.
(bit_and @@1 @@0))
@end smallexample
-Here we introduce flags on match expressions. There is currently
-a single flag, @code{c}, which denotes that the expression should
+Here we introduce flags on match expressions. There used flag
+above, @code{c}, denotes that the expression should
be also matched commutated. Thus the above match expression
is really the following four match expressions:
+@smallexample
(bit_and integral_op_p@@0 (bit_ior (bit_not @@0) @@1))
(bit_and (bit_ior (bit_not @@0) @@1) integral_op_p@@0)
(bit_and integral_op_p@@0 (bit_ior @@1 (bit_not @@0)))
(bit_and (bit_ior @@1 (bit_not @@0)) integral_op_p@@0)
+@end smallexample
Usual canonicalizations you know from GENERIC expressions are
applied before matching, so for example constant operands always
come second in commutative expressions.
+The second supported flag is @code{s} which tells the code
+generator to fail the pattern if the expression marked with
+@code{s} does have more than one use. For example in
+
+@smallexample
+(simplify
+ (pointer_plus (pointer_plus:s @@0 @@1) @@3)
+ (pointer_plus @@0 (plus @@1 @@3)))
+@end smallexample
+
+this avoids the association if @code{(pointer_plus @@0 @@1)} is
+used outside of the matched expression and thus it would stay
+live and not trivially removed by dead code elimination.
+
More features exist to avoid too much repetition.
@smallexample
@@ -291,17 +307,17 @@ with a @code{?}:
@smallexample
(simplify
- (eq (convert@@0 @@1) (convert? @@2))
+ (eq (convert@@0 @@1) (convert@? @@2))
(eq @@1 (convert @@2)))
@end smallexample
which will match both @code{(eq (convert @@1) (convert @@2))} and
@code{(eq (convert @@1) @@2)}. The optional converts are supposed
to be all either present or not, thus
-@code{(eq (convert? @@1) (convert? @@2))} will result in two
+@code{(eq (convert@? @@1) (convert@? @@2))} will result in two
patterns only. If you want to match all four combinations you
have access to two additional conditional converts as in
-@code{(eq (convert1? @@1) (convert2? @@2))}.
+@code{(eq (convert1@? @@1) (convert2@? @@2))}.
Predicates available from the GCC middle-end need to be made
available explicitely via @code{define_predicates}:
