On 8 February 2017 at 17:24, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 7 February 2017 at 20:06, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> The attached patch tries to handle ABS_EXPR in gimple-fe.
>> >> I am not sure if __ABS_EXPR should be parsed as id (like __MEM)
>> >> or parse it as keyword (like __GIMPLE). Currently in the patch, I
>> >> parse it as id.
>> >> Patch passes gimplefe tests, is it OK to commit after bootstrap+test ?
>> >
>> > Few comments - the new oper_code argument to unary parsing seems
>> > superfluous - you check the name again for __ABS_EXPR. Also I'd
>> > spell it __ABS, without the _EXPR part.
>> Thanks for the suggestions. The name is not checked again for
>> __ABS_EXPR, if oper_code is set to sth
>> other than ERROR_MARK. oper_code is set only by c_parser_gimple_statement.
>> However I agree it's ugly since the comparison code is placed in both
>> the functions.
>>
>> In the attached patch, I changed it to __ABS and name comparison is
>> done only within
>> c_parser_gimple_unary_expression. However it uses an ugly hack to know
>> it's called from
>> c_parser_gimple_statement and then backs off from further parsing the
>> token if it's type is
>> CPP_NAME and value is not "__ABS". Not sure if this is good idea either.
>
> I'd rather compare the name twice without any extra parameter passing.
> As said, some bigger refactoring should be done to avoid this in the
> future.
Is this version OK after bootstrap+test ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Prathamesh
>> >
>> > For __MEM we go to binary op parsing and then take the "not binary op"
>> > route. I guess some refactoring might clean up things here - not for
>> > now though.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure whether new RID_ keywords would be prefered for this
>> > kind of stuff. We added one for __PHI. Joseph, is the RID_ space
>> > somehow limited so that we should avoid ending up with, say, up to
>> > 226 RID_s for GIMPLE (upper estimate taken from the number of
>> > tree codes we have in tree.def)? I see currently cpplib puts
>> > rid_code into an unsigned char and we do already seem to have quite
>> > some of them (114 if I count correctly).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Richard.
>>
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
> 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
diff --git a/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c b/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c
index e167e42..681951c 100644
--- a/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c
+++ b/gcc/c/gimple-parser.c
@@ -325,6 +325,13 @@ c_parser_gimple_statement (c_parser *parser, gimple_seq
*seq)
/* Unary expression. */
switch (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->type)
{
+ case CPP_NAME:
+ {
+ tree id = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value;
+ if (strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id), "__ABS") == 0)
+ goto build_unary_expr;
+ break;
+ }
case CPP_KEYWORD:
if (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->keyword != RID_REALPART
&& c_parser_peek_token (parser)->keyword != RID_IMAGPART)
@@ -336,6 +343,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_statement (c_parser *parser, gimple_seq
*seq)
case CPP_COMPL:
case CPP_NOT:
case CPP_MULT: /* pointer deref */
+ build_unary_expr:
rhs = c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (parser);
if (rhs.value != error_mark_node)
{
@@ -537,7 +545,7 @@ c_parser_gimple_binary_expression (c_parser *parser)
unary-operator gimple-postfix-expression
unary-operator: one of
- & * + - ~
+ & * + - ~ abs_expr
*/
static c_expr
@@ -599,6 +607,18 @@ c_parser_gimple_unary_expression (c_parser *parser)
default:
return c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
}
+ case CPP_NAME:
+ {
+ tree id = c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value;
+ if (strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id), "__ABS") == 0)
+ {
+ c_parser_consume_token (parser);
+ op = c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
+ return parser_build_unary_op (op_loc, ABS_EXPR, op);
+ }
+ else
+ return c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
+ }
default:
return c_parser_gimple_postfix_expression (parser);
}
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c b/gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c
index 91c839d..0033e97 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c
@@ -323,9 +323,17 @@ dump_unary_rhs (pretty_printer *buffer, gassign *gs, int
spc, int flags)
break;
case ABS_EXPR:
- pp_string (buffer, "ABS_EXPR <");
- dump_generic_node (buffer, rhs, spc, flags, false);
- pp_greater (buffer);
+ if (flags & TDF_GIMPLE)
+ {
+ pp_string (buffer, "__ABS ");
+ dump_generic_node (buffer, rhs, spc, flags, false);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ pp_string (buffer, "ABS_EXPR <");
+ dump_generic_node (buffer, rhs, spc, flags, false);
+ pp_greater (buffer);
+ }
break;
default:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-25.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-25.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8c44a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-25.c
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -fgimple -fdump-tree-ssa-gimple" } */
+
+int __GIMPLE() f(int a)
+{
+ int t0;
+ t0_1 = __ABS a;
+ return t0_1;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__ABS a" "ssa" } } */
