On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Hi,
I saw this on llvm's review site (https://reviews.llvm.org/D34579)
and I thought why not add it to GCC. I expanded more than what was
done on the LLVM patch.
I added the following optimizations:
Transform X * (X > 0 ? 1 : -1) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X >= 0 ? 1 : -1) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X > 0 ? -1 : 1) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X >= 0 ? -1 : 1) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X > 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X >= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X < 0 ? 1 : -1) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X <= 0 ? 1 : -1) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into -ABS(X).
Transform X * (X < 0 ? -1 : 1) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X <= 0 ? -1 : 1) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into ABS(X).
Transform X * (X <= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into ABS(X).
The floating points ones only happen when not honoring SNANS and not
honoring signed zeros.
Some random comments (not a review):
* if X is NaN, we may get a qNaN with the wrong sign bit. We probably
don't care much though...
* I am surprised (X<0.?-1.:1.) and copysign(1., X) remain different for
the whole optimization pipeline with -ffast-math. X*copysign(1., X) is
another candidate to become fabs(X).
* Whenever you get -ABS(X) for integers, what about the case where X is
INT_MIN?
* I guess we can't get there with an unsigned type because X>0 would have
become X!=0 .
* I wonder if we could use something like
(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
outp (convert convert negate negate)
outn (negate negate convert convert)
[...]
(outp (abs @0))
to reduce duplication or if that would be less readable.
* Some of the cases are handled by PRE turning
# iftmp.0_1 = PHI <1.0e+0(5), -1.0e+0(3)>
_3 = iftmp.0_1 * a_2(D);
into
_5 = -a_2(D);
[...]
# iftmp.0_1 = PHI <1.0e+0(2), -1.0e+0(3)>
# prephitmp_6 = PHI <a_2(D)(2), _5(3)>
which phiopt3 can handle (quite late).
* With cond, this currently (?) only affects generic, so I am not sure it
will hit very often... But it will be there if someone later writes a
match.pd->phiopt generator ;-)
--
Marc Glisse
