On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ping?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00987.html
Sorry for the delay.
+ /* ~[TYPE_MIN + 1, TYPE_MAX - 1] */
+ if (vr->type == VR_ANTI_RANGE
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (var))
+ && wi::sub (vr->min, wi::min_value (TREE_TYPE (var))) == 1
+ && wi::sub (wi::max_value (TREE_TYPE (var)), vr->max) == 1)
use vrp_val_min/max instead of wi::max/min_value
+ {
+ *a = vrp_val_min (TREE_TYPE (var));
+ *b = vrp_val_max (TREE_TYPE (var));
Ok with that change.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
> On 12 August 2016 at 13:19, kugan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/16 20:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:11 AM, kugan
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>> +two_valued_val_range_p (tree var, tree *a, tree *b)
>>> +{
>>> + value_range *vr = get_value_range (var);
>>> + if ((vr->type != VR_RANGE
>>> + && vr->type != VR_ANTI_RANGE)
>>> + || !range_int_cst_p (vr))
>>> + return false;
>>>
>>> range_int_cst_p checks for vr->type == VR_RANGE so the anti-range handling
>>> doesn't ever trigger - which means you should add a testcase for it as
>>> well.
>>
>>
>> Fixed it. I have also added a testcase.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> + {
>>> + *a = TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (var));
>>> + *b = TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (var));
>>>
>>> note that for pointer types this doesn't work, please also use
>>> vrp_val_min/max for
>>> consistency. I think you want to add a INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (var))
>>> to the guard of two_valued_val_range_p.
>>>
>>> + /* First canonicalize to simplify tests. */
>>> + if (commutative_tree_code (rhs_code)
>>> + && TREE_CODE (rhs2) == INTEGER_CST)
>>> + std::swap (rhs1, rhs2);
>>>
>>> note that this doesn't really address my comment - if you just want to
>>> handle
>>> commutative ops then simply look for the constant in the second place
>>> rather
>>> than the first which is the canonical operand order. But even for
>>> non-commutative
>>> operations we might want to apply this optimization - and then for both
>>> cases,
>>> rhs1 or rhs2 being constant. Like x / 5 and 5 / x.
>>>
>>> Note that you can rely on int_const_binop returning NULL_TREE for
>>> "invalid"
>>> ops like x % 0 or x / 0, so no need to explicitely guard this here.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I misunderstood you. I have changed it now. I also added test-case to
>> check this.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no new
>> regressions. Is this OK for trunk now?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kugan
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2016-08-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]>
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/61839
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61839_1.c: New test.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61839_2.c: New test.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61839_3.c: New test.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61839_4.c: New test.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2016-08-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]>
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/61839
>> * tree-vrp.c (two_valued_val_range_p): New.
>> (simplify_stmt_using_ranges): Convert CST BINOP VAR where VAR is
>> two-valued to VAR == VAL1 ? (CST BINOP VAL1) : (CST BINOP VAL2).
>> Also Convert VAR BINOP CST where VAR is two-valued to
>> VAR == VAL1 ? (VAL1 BINOP CST) : (VAL2 BINOP CST).
