On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:46:46PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> The result of exercises with sed in gcc/ directory.
>>
>> 2016-07-19 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
>>
>> * builtins.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_1 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1,
>> HOST_WIDE_INT_1U instead of (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 1,
>> HOST_WIDE_INT_M1 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1 and
>> HOST_WIDE_INT_M1U instead of (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) -1.
>> * combine.c: Ditto.
>> * cse.c: Ditto.
>> * dojump.c: Ditto.
>> * double-int.c: Ditto.
>> * dse.c: Ditto.
>> * dwarf2out.c: Ditto.
>> * expmed.c: Ditto.
>> * expr.c: Ditto.
>> * fold-const.c: Ditto.
>> * function.c: Ditto.
>> * fwprop.c: Ditto.
>> * genmodes.c: Ditto.
>> * hwint.c: Ditto.
>> * hwint.h: Ditto.
>> * ifcvt.c: Ditto.
>> * loop-doloop.c: Ditto.
>> * loop-invariant.c: Ditto.
>> * loop-iv.c: Ditto.
>> * match.pd: Ditto.
>> * optabs.c: Ditto.
>> * real.c: Ditto.
>> * reload.c: Ditto.
>> * rtlanal.c: Ditto.
>> * simplify-rtx.c: Ditto.
>> * stor-layout.c: Ditto.
>> * toplev.c: Ditto.
>> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c: Ditto.
>> * tree-vect-generic.c: Ditto.
>> * tree-vect-patterns.c: Ditto.
>> * tree.c: Ditto.
>> * tree.h: Ditto.
>> * ubsan.c: Ditto.
>> * varasm.c: Ditto.
>> * wide-int-print.cc: Ditto.
>> * wide-int.cc: Ditto.
>> * wide-int.h: Ditto.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}.
>>
>> OK for mainline?
>
>> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ div_and_round_double (unsigned code, int uns,
>> if (quo_neg && (*lrem != 0 || *hrem != 0)) /* ratio < 0 && rem != 0
>> */
>> {
>> /* quo = quo - 1; */
>> - add_double (*lquo, *hquo, (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1,
>> + add_double (*lquo, *hquo, HOST_WIDE_INT_M1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1,
>> lquo, hquo);
>> }
>> else
>
> This surely should be
> add_double (*lquo, *hquo, HOST_WIDE_INT_M1, HOST_WIDE_INT_M1,
> lquo, hquo);
Thanks, the repacement regexp missed the second one due to extra space. Fixed.
>> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ div_and_round_double (unsigned code, int uns,
>> case CEIL_MOD_EXPR: /* round toward positive infinity */
>> if (!quo_neg && (*lrem != 0 || *hrem != 0)) /* ratio > 0 && rem != 0
>> */
>> {
>> - add_double (*lquo, *hquo, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0,
>> + add_double (*lquo, *hquo, HOST_WIDE_INT_1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0,
>> lquo, hquo);
>> }
>> else
>
> Dunno here, either just use 0 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0, or define
> HOST_WIDE_INT_0 macro and use that? Though as add_double is a macro
> that in the end calls a function with UHWI or HWI arguments, I wonder what is
> the
> point in all these casts, whether just using -1, -1, or 1, 0, etc. wouldn't
> be better.
I didn't want to add more complex cases (e.g. ~(unsigned
HOST_WIDE_INT) 0 to the patch, just the trivial replacements. I will
submit a follow-up patch that converts these cases. The patch will be
much shorter, but there are some cases that are non-trivial.
>> @@ -590,10 +590,10 @@ div_and_round_double (unsigned code, int uns,
>> if (quo_neg)
>> /* quo = quo - 1; */
>> add_double (*lquo, *hquo,
>> - (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) -1, lquo, hquo);
>> + HOST_WIDE_INT_M1, HOST_WIDE_INT_M1, lquo, hquo);
>> else
>> /* quo = quo + 1; */
>> - add_double (*lquo, *hquo, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0,
>> + add_double (*lquo, *hquo, HOST_WIDE_INT_1, (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0,
>> lquo, hquo);
>> }
>> else
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> index f5c530a..4354b5b 100644
>> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>> occasionally need to sign extend from low to high as if low were a
>> signed wide int. */
>> #define HWI_SIGN_EXTEND(low) \
>> - ((((HOST_WIDE_INT) low) < 0) ? ((HOST_WIDE_INT) -1) : ((HOST_WIDE_INT) 0))
>> + ((((HOST_WIDE_INT) low) < 0) ? HOST_WIDE_INT_M1 : ((HOST_WIDE_INT) 0))
>>
>> static rtx neg_const_int (machine_mode, const_rtx);
>> static bool plus_minus_operand_p (const_rtx);
>
> But then here we have yet another (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0 - HOST_WIDE_INT_0
> candidate.
I will submit yet another patch introducing HOST_WIDE_INT_0.
> Otherwise LGTM.
Thanks! Committed with the above mentioned fix.
Uros.
