On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2011/10/17 Richard Guenther <[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Kai Tietz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> So I committed the gimplify patch separate. And here is the remaining
>>> fold-const patch.
>>> The important tests here are in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-expect[1-4].c, which
>>> cover the one special-case for branching. Also tree-ssa/20040204-1.c covers
>>> tests for branching code (on targets having high-engough BRANCH_COST and no
>>> special-casing - like MIPS, S/390, and AVR.
>>>
>>> ChangeLog
>>>
>>> 2011-10-14 Kai Tietz <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> * fold-const.c (simple_operand_p_2): New function.
>>> (fold_truthop): Rename to
>>> (fold_truth_andor_1): function name.
>>> Additionally remove branching creation for logical and/or.
>>> (fold_truth_andor): Handle branching creation for logical and/or
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regression-tested for all languages plus Ada and
>>> Obj-C++ on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>> Ok for apply?
>>
>> Ok with ...
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kai
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/gcc/fold-const.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c
>>> +++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c
>>> @@ -112,13 +112,13 @@ static tree decode_field_reference (loca
>>> static int all_ones_mask_p (const_tree, int);
>>> static tree sign_bit_p (tree, const_tree);
>>> static int simple_operand_p (const_tree);
>>> +static bool simple_operand_p_2 (tree);
>>> static tree range_binop (enum tree_code, tree, tree, int, tree, int);
>>> static tree range_predecessor (tree);
>>> static tree range_successor (tree);
>>> static tree fold_range_test (location_t, enum tree_code, tree, tree, tree);
>>> static tree fold_cond_expr_with_comparison (location_t, tree, tree,
>>> tree, tree);
>>> static tree unextend (tree, int, int, tree);
>>> -static tree fold_truthop (location_t, enum tree_code, tree, tree, tree);
>>> static tree optimize_minmax_comparison (location_t, enum tree_code,
>>> tree, tree, tree);
>>> static tree extract_muldiv (tree, tree, enum tree_code, tree, bool *);
>>> @@ -3500,7 +3500,7 @@ optimize_bit_field_compare (location_t l
>>> return lhs;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* Subroutine for fold_truthop: decode a field reference.
>>> +/* Subroutine for fold_truth_andor_1: decode a field reference.
>>>
>>> If EXP is a comparison reference, we return the innermost reference.
>>>
>>> @@ -3668,7 +3668,7 @@ sign_bit_p (tree exp, const_tree val)
>>> return NULL_TREE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* Subroutine for fold_truthop: determine if an operand is simple enough
>>> +/* Subroutine for fold_truth_andor_1: determine if an operand is simple
>>> enough
>>> to be evaluated unconditionally. */
>>>
>>> static int
>>> @@ -3678,7 +3678,7 @@ simple_operand_p (const_tree exp)
>>> STRIP_NOPS (exp);
>>>
>>> return (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (exp)
>>> - || TREE_CODE (exp) == SSA_NAME
>>> + || TREE_CODE (exp) == SSA_NAME
>>> || (DECL_P (exp)
>>> && ! TREE_ADDRESSABLE (exp)
>>> && ! TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (exp)
>>> @@ -3692,6 +3692,46 @@ simple_operand_p (const_tree exp)
>>> registers aren't expensive. */
>>> && (! TREE_STATIC (exp) || DECL_REGISTER (exp))));
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +/* Subroutine for fold_truth_andor: determine if an operand is simple
>>> enough
>>> + to be evaluated unconditionally.
>>> + I addition to simple_operand_p, we assume that comparisons and logic-not
>>> + operations are simple, if their operands are simple, too. */
>>> +
>>> +static bool
>>> +simple_operand_p_2 (tree exp)
>>> +{
>>> + enum tree_code code;
>>> +
>>> + /* Strip any conversions that don't change the machine mode. */
>>> + STRIP_NOPS (exp);
>>> +
>>> + code = TREE_CODE (exp);
>>> +
>>> + if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_comparison)
>>> + return (!tree_could_trap_p (exp)
>>> + && simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0))
>>> + && simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)));
>>
>> recurse with simple_operand_p.
>
> No, as this again would reject simple operations and additionally
> wouldn't check for trapping.
? Your code allows arbitrarily complex expressions. Also
tree_could_trap_p obviously extents to operands.
>
>>> +
>>> + if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (exp)
>>> + || tree_could_trap_p (exp))
>>
>> Move this check before the tcc_comparison check and remove the
>> then redundant tree_could_trap_p check there.
>
> Ok
>
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + switch (code)
>>> + {
>>> + case SSA_NAME:
>>> + return true;
>>
>> Do not handle here, it's handled in simple_operand_p.
>
> Well, was more a short-cut here.
>
>>> + case TRUTH_NOT_EXPR:
>>> + return simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0));
>>> + case BIT_NOT_EXPR:
>>> + if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (exp)) != BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>>> + return false;
>>
>> Remove the BIT_NOT_EXPR handling. Thus, simply change this switch
>> to
>
> Why should we reject simple ~X operations from gimplified code here?
Because this is FE triggered code. From gimple you won't ever see
such complex expressions (never even the TRUTH_AND*_EXPR variants).
> I admit that from FE-code we won't see that, as always an integer-cast
> is done for foo (_Bool x) { ... if (~x) ... }, but from
> gimplified-code this is the general description of an boolean-typed !=
> 0?
>
>> if (code == TRUTH_NOT_EXPR)
>> return simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0));
>>
>> return simple_operand_p (exp);
>>
>>> + return simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0));
>>> + default:
>>> + return simple_operand_p (exp);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>
>>> /* The following functions are subroutines to fold_range_test and allow it
>>> to
>>> try to change a logical combination of comparisons into a range test.
>>> @@ -4888,7 +4928,7 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tr
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* Subroutine for fold_truthop: C is an INTEGER_CST interpreted as a P
>>> +/* Subroutine for fold_truth_andor_1: C is an INTEGER_CST interpreted as a
>>> P
>>> bit value. Arrange things so the extra bits will be set to zero if and
>>> only if C is signed-extended to its full width. If MASK is nonzero,
>>> it is an INTEGER_CST that should be AND'ed with the extra bits. */
>>> @@ -5025,8 +5065,8 @@ merge_truthop_with_opposite_arm (locatio
>>> We return the simplified tree or 0 if no optimization is possible. */
>>>
>>> static tree
>>> -fold_truthop (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree truth_type,
>>> - tree lhs, tree rhs)
>>> +fold_truth_andor_1 (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree truth_type,
>>> + tree lhs, tree rhs)
>>> {
>>> /* If this is the "or" of two comparisons, we can do something if
>>> the comparisons are NE_EXPR. If this is the "and", we can do something
>>> @@ -5054,8 +5094,6 @@ fold_truthop (location_t loc, enum tree_
>>> tree lntype, rntype, result;
>>> HOST_WIDE_INT first_bit, end_bit;
>>> int volatilep;
>>> - tree orig_lhs = lhs, orig_rhs = rhs;
>>> - enum tree_code orig_code = code;
>>>
>>> /* Start by getting the comparison codes. Fail if anything is volatile.
>>> If one operand is a BIT_AND_EXPR with the constant one, treat it as if
>>> @@ -5119,8 +5157,7 @@ fold_truthop (location_t loc, enum tree_
>>> /* If the RHS can be evaluated unconditionally and its operands are
>>> simple, it wins to evaluate the RHS unconditionally on machines
>>> with expensive branches. In this case, this isn't a comparison
>>> - that can be merged. Avoid doing this if the RHS is a floating-point
>>> - comparison since those can trap. */
>>> + that can be merged. */
>>>
>>> if (BRANCH_COST (optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun),
>>> false) >= 2
>>> @@ -5149,13 +5186,6 @@ fold_truthop (location_t loc, enum tree_
>>> build2 (BIT_IOR_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (ll_arg),
>>> ll_arg, rl_arg),
>>> build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (ll_arg), 0));
>>> -
>>> - if (LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT)
>>> - {
>>> - if (code != orig_code || lhs != orig_lhs || rhs != orig_rhs)
>>> - return build2_loc (loc, code, truth_type, lhs, rhs);
>>> - return NULL_TREE;
>>> - }
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* See if the comparisons can be merged. Then get all the parameters for
>>> @@ -8380,13 +8410,49 @@ fold_truth_andor (location_t loc, enum t
>>> lhs is another similar operation, try to merge its rhs with our
>>> rhs. Then try to merge our lhs and rhs. */
>>> if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == code
>>> - && 0 != (tem = fold_truthop (loc, code, type,
>>> - TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1), arg1)))
>>> + && 0 != (tem = fold_truth_andor_1 (loc, code, type,
>>> + TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1), arg1)))
>>> return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0), tem);
>>>
>>> - if ((tem = fold_truthop (loc, code, type, arg0, arg1)) != 0)
>>> + if ((tem = fold_truth_andor_1 (loc, code, type, arg0, arg1)) != 0)
>>> return tem;
>>>
>>> + if ((code == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR || code == TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR)
>>> + && (BRANCH_COST (optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun),
>>> + false) >= 2)
>>> + && LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT
>>> + && simple_operand_p_2 (arg1))
>>> + {
>>> + enum tree_code ncode = (code == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR ? TRUTH_AND_EXPR
>>> + : TRUTH_OR_EXPR);
>>> +
>>> + /* Transform ((A AND-IF B) AND-IF C) into (A AND-IF (B AND C)),
>>> + or ((A OR-IF B) OR-IF C) into (A OR-IF (B OR C))
>>> + We don't want to pack more than two leafs to a non-IF AND/OR
>>> + expression.
>>> + If tree-code of left-hand operand isn't an AND/OR-IF code and not
>>> + equal to CODE, then we don't want to add right-hand operand.
>>> + If the inner right-hand side of left-hand operand has
>>> side-effects,
>>> + or isn't simple, then we can't add to it, as otherwise we might
>>> + destroy if-sequence. */
>>> + if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == code
>>> + /* Needed for sequence points to handle trappings, and
>>> + side-effects. */
>>> + && simple_operand_p_2 (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)))
>>> + {
>>> + tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, ncode, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1),
>>> + arg1);
>>> + return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0),
>>> + tem);
>>> + }
>>
>> I see you insist on this change. Let me explain again. You do this
>> for ((A AND-IF B) AND-IF C) but you don't do this for
>> ((A AND-IF B) AND C). Why? That is what doesn't make sense ot me.
>> Thus omit this hunk.
>
> Well, first ((A AND-IF B) AND C) would be an ill sequence, as AND is
> associative. So we would simply break sequence points for && and ||.
> If left-hand operand is an AND/OR-IF then outer operand has to always
> an ?-IF operation, too.
Why? It's something like (ptr && *ptr) & x. Whether you evaluate
x or (ptr && *ptr) first does not matter. But you have to check
whether ptr is non-null before dereferencing it. So it's clearly not
ill-formed. You may argue the transform is pointless and we should
associate the & instead. Do you?
Only case we can associate to is for (A
> AND-IF B) AND-IF C to ((A AND-IF (B AND C), if B and C have no
> side-effects.
>
>> Ok with the above changes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
