On 9/11/19 10:22 AM, Li Jia He wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019/9/10 3:40 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 9/9/19 3:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/9/19 3:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> There is no newly created GIMPLE?
>>>>
>>>> Hm, I thought from the beginning that maybe_fold_comparisons_from_match_pd
>>>> can come up with new temporary expressions that need to be inserted into
>>>> GIMPLE stream? But that's probably handled in ifcombine with:
>>>>
>>>> t = force_gimple_operand_gsi_1 (&gsi, t, is_gimple_condexpr, NULL,
>>>> true,
>>>> GSI_SAME_STMT);
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> No, that case is done when forcing short-circuiting when there was no
>>> simplification. When there was a simplification we do
>>>
>>> if (result_inv)
>>> t = fold_build1 (TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (t), t);
>>> t = canonicalize_cond_expr_cond (t);
>>> if (!t)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> so when it is not a condition suitable for direct replacement into
>>>
>>> gimple_cond_set_condition_from_tree (inner_cond, t);
>>>
>>> we fail.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>
>> I see, so I'm sending updated tested patch.
>
Hello.
Next time, please Reply to all ;)
> Thanks for working on this.
> I tested the patch. But I found that this patch will cause gcc not to
> bootstrap. I found the following statement may be a question.
> '
> gimple *stmt1 = (gimple *) XALLOCAVEC (char, gimple_size (GIMPLE_ASSIGN, 2));
> '
> we may need to change it to the following
> '
> gimple *stmt1 = (gimple *) XALLOCAVEC (char, gimple_size (GIMPLE_ASSIGN, 3));
> '
> And we may also replace gimple with gassign.
Good point, I'll include the changes to my patchset.
>
> And we may also need to make some changes to the statements in
> if(op.resimplify (NULL, follow_all_ssa_edges)). Please take a look at the
> attachment:
@@ -5888,23 +5890,22 @@
maybe_fold_comparisons_from_match_pd (tree type, enum tree_code code,
if (gimple_simplified_result_is_gimple_val (&op))
{
tree res = op.ops[0];
- switch (TREE_CODE (res))
- {
- case SSA_NAME:
- {
- if (res == lhs1)
- return build2 (code1, type, op1a, op1b);
- else if (res == lhs2)
- return build2 (code2, type, op2a, op2b);
- else
- return res;
- }
- case INTEGER_CST:
- /* Fold expression to boolean_true_node or boolean_false_node.
*/
- return res;
- default:
- return NULL_TREE;
- }
+ if (res == lhs1)
+ return build2 (code1, type, op1a, op1b);
+ else if (res == lhs2)
+ return build2 (code2, type, op2a, op2b);
+ else
+ return res;
I'll include this.
+ }
+
+ if (op.code.is_tree_code ()
+ && TREE_CODE_CLASS ((enum tree_code) op.code) == tcc_comparison)
+ {
+ tree op0 = op.ops[0];
+ tree op1 = op.ops[1];
+ if (op0 == lhs1 || op0 == lhs2 || op1 == lhs1 || op1 == lhs2)
+ return NULL_TREE; /* not simple */
+ return build2 ((enum tree_code) op.code, op.type, op0, op1);
}
}
This is added in patch 3/5.
Martin
>
> Thanks,
> Lijia He
>
>>
>> Martin
