On 26 July 2016 at 17:28, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 25 July 2016 at 14:32, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> The attached patch tries to fix PR70920.
>> >> It adds your pattern from comment 1 in the PR
>> >> (with additional gating on INTEGRAL_TYPE_P to avoid regressing
>> >> finalize_18.f90)
>> >> and second pattern, which is reverse of the first transform.
>> >> I needed to update ssa-dom-branch-1.c because with patch applied,
>> >> jump threading removed the second if (i != 0B) block.
>> >> The dumps with and without patch for ssa-dom-branch-1.c start
>> >> to differ with forwprop1:
>> >>
>> >> before:
>> >> <bb 3>:
>> >> _1 = temp_16(D)->code;
>> >> _2 = _1 == 42;
>> >> _3 = (int) _2;
>> >> _4 = (long int) _3;
>> >> temp_17 = (struct rtx_def *) _4;
>> >> if (temp_17 != 0B)
>> >> goto <bb 4>;
>> >> else
>> >> goto <bb 8>;
>> >>
>> >> after:
>> >> <bb 3>:
>> >> _1 = temp_16(D)->code;
>> >> _2 = _1 == 42;
>> >> _3 = (int) _2;
>> >> _4 = (long int) _2;
>> >> temp_17 = (struct rtx_def *) _4;
>> >> if (_1 == 42)
>> >> goto <bb 4>;
>> >> else
>> >> goto <bb 8>;
>> >>
>> >> I suppose the transform is correct for above test-case ?
>> >>
>> >> Then vrp dump shows:
>> >> Threaded jump 5 --> 9 to 13
>> >> Threaded jump 8 --> 9 to 13
>> >> Threaded jump 3 --> 9 to 13
>> >> Threaded jump 12 --> 9 to 14
>> >> Removing basic block 9
>> >> basic block 9, loop depth 0
>> >> pred:
>> >> if (i1_10(D) != 0B)
>> >> goto <bb 10>;
>> >> else
>> >> goto <bb 11>;
>> >> succ: 10
>> >> 11
>> >>
>> >> So there remained two instances of if (i1_10 (D) != 0B) in dom2 dump file,
>> >> and hence needed to update the test-case.
>> >>
>> >> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>> >> OK to commit ?
>> >
>> > --- a/gcc/match.pd
>> > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
>> > @@ -3408,3 +3408,23 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
>> > { CONSTRUCTOR_ELT (ctor, idx / k)->value; })
>> > (BIT_FIELD_REF { CONSTRUCTOR_ELT (ctor, idx / k)->value; }
>> > @1 { bitsize_int ((idx % k) * width); })))))))))
>> > +
>> > +/* PR70920: Transform (intptr_t)x eq/ne CST to x eq/ne (typeof x) CST.
>> > */
>> > +
>> > +(for cmp (ne eq)
>> > + (simplify
>> > + (cmp (convert@2 @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
>> > + (if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
>> > + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@2)))
>> >
>> > you can use @1 here and omit @2.
>> >
>> > + (cmp @0 (convert @1)))))
>> > +
>> > +/* Reverse of the above case:
>> > + x has integral_type, CST is a pointer constant.
>> > + Transform (typeof CST)x eq/ne CST to x eq/ne (typeof x) CST. */
>> > +
>> > +(for cmp (ne eq)
>> > + (simplify
>> > + (cmp (convert @0) @1)
>> > + (if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1))
>> > + && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>> > + (cmp @0 (convert @1)))))
>> >
>> > The second pattern lacks the INTEGER_CST on @1 so it doesn't match
>> > its comment. Please do not add vertical space between pattern
>> > comment and pattern.
>> >
>> > Please place patterns not at the end of match.pd but where similar
>> > transforms are done. Like after
>> >
>> > /* Simplify pointer equality compares using PTA. */
>> > (for neeq (ne eq)
>> > (simplify
>> > (neeq @0 @1)
>> > (if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
>> > && ptrs_compare_unequal (@0, @1))
>> > { neeq == EQ_EXPR ? boolean_false_node : boolean_true_node; })))
>> >
>> > please also share the (for ...) for both patterns or merge them
>> > by changing the condition to
>> >
>> > (if ((POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
>> > && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1)))
>> > || (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
>> > && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1))))
>> >
>> Hi,
>> Done suggested changes in this version.
>> pr70920-4.c (test-case in patch) is now folded during ccp instead of
>> forwprop after merging the
>> two patterns.
>> Passes bootstrap+test on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>> OK for trunk ?
>
> (please paste in ChangeLog entries rather than attaching them).
Will do henceforth.
>
> In gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-branch-1.c you need to adjust the comment
> before the dump-scan you adjust.
>
> Ok with that change.
Thanks, committed as r238754 after adjusting the comment in ssa-dom-branch-1.c.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
