On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:02 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, Jiufu Guo wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > For "get_global_range_query" SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO can be queried. > > For "get_range_query", it could get more context-aware range info. > > And look at the implementation of "get_range_query", it returns > > global range if no local fun info. > > > > So, if not quering for SSA_NAME, it would be ok to use get_range_query > > to replace get_global_range_query. > > > > Patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630389.html, > > Uses get_range_query could handle more cases. > > > > This patch replaces get_global_range_query by get_range_query for > > most possible code pieces (but deoes not draft new test cases). > > > > Pass bootstrap & regtest on ppc64{,le} and x86_64. > > Is this ok for trunk. > > See below > > > > > BR, > > Jeff (Jiufu Guo) > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * builtins.cc (expand_builtin_strnlen): Replace get_global_range_query > > by get_range_query. > > * fold-const.cc (expr_not_equal_to): Likewise. > > * gimple-fold.cc (size_must_be_zero_p): Likewise. > > * gimple-range-fold.cc (fur_source::fur_source): Likewise. > > * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc (check_nul_terminated_array): Likewise. > > * tree-dfa.cc (get_ref_base_and_extent): Likewise. > > * tree-ssa-loop-split.cc (split_at_bb_p): Likewise. > > * tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc > > (evaluate_control_stmt_using_entry_checks): > > Likewise. > > > > --- > > gcc/builtins.cc | 2 +- > > gcc/fold-const.cc | 6 +----- > > gcc/gimple-fold.cc | 6 ++---- > > gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc | 4 +--- > > gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc | 2 +- > > gcc/tree-dfa.cc | 5 +---- > > gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.cc | 2 +- > > gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc | 2 +- > > 8 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/builtins.cc b/gcc/builtins.cc > > index cb90bd03b3e..4e0a77ff8e0 100644 > > --- a/gcc/builtins.cc > > +++ b/gcc/builtins.cc > > @@ -3477,7 +3477,7 @@ expand_builtin_strnlen (tree exp, rtx target, > > machine_mode target_mode) > > > > wide_int min, max; > > value_range r; > > - get_global_range_query ()->range_of_expr (r, bound); > > + get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (r, bound); > > expand doesn't have a ranger instance so this is a no-op. I'm unsure > if it would be safe given we're half GIMPLE, half RTL. Please leave it > out.
It definitely does not work and can't as I tried to enable a ranger instance and it didn't work. I wrote up my experience here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-September/242407.html Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > > if (r.varying_p () || r.undefined_p ()) > > return NULL_RTX; > > min = r.lower_bound (); > > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc > > index 4f8561509ff..15134b21b9f 100644 > > --- a/gcc/fold-const.cc > > +++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc > > @@ -11056,11 +11056,7 @@ expr_not_equal_to (tree t, const wide_int &w) > > if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))) > > return false; > > > > - if (cfun) > > - get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (vr, t); > > - else > > - get_global_range_query ()->range_of_expr (vr, t); > > - > > + get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (vr, t); > > These kind of changes look obvious. > > > if (!vr.undefined_p () && !vr.contains_p (w)) > > return true; > > /* If T has some known zero bits and W has any of those bits set, > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc > > index dc89975270c..853edd9e5d4 100644 > > --- a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc > > +++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc > > @@ -876,10 +876,8 @@ size_must_be_zero_p (tree size) > > wide_int zero = wi::zero (TYPE_PRECISION (type)); > > value_range valid_range (type, zero, ssize_max); > > value_range vr; > > - if (cfun) > > - get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (vr, size); > > - else > > - get_global_range_query ()->range_of_expr (vr, size); > > + get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (vr, size); > > + > > if (vr.undefined_p ()) > > vr.set_varying (TREE_TYPE (size)); > > vr.intersect (valid_range); > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc > > index d1945ccb554..6e9530c3d7f 100644 > > --- a/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc > > +++ b/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc > > @@ -50,10 +50,8 @@ fur_source::fur_source (range_query *q) > > { > > if (q) > > m_query = q; > > - else if (cfun) > > - m_query = get_range_query (cfun); > > else > > - m_query = get_global_range_query (); > > + m_query = get_range_query (cfun); > > m_gori = NULL; > > } > > > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc > > index fcaff128d60..e439d1b9b68 100644 > > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc > > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc > > @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ check_nul_terminated_array (GimpleOrTree expr, tree > > src, tree bound) > > { > > Value_Range r (TREE_TYPE (bound)); > > > > - get_global_range_query ()->range_of_expr (r, bound); > > + get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (r, bound); > > > > if (r.undefined_p () || r.varying_p ()) > > return true; > > The pass has a ranger instance, so yes, this should improve things. > Since the pass doesn't do any IL modification it should also be safe. > > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-dfa.cc b/gcc/tree-dfa.cc > > index af8e9243947..5355af2c869 100644 > > --- a/gcc/tree-dfa.cc > > +++ b/gcc/tree-dfa.cc > > @@ -531,10 +531,7 @@ get_ref_base_and_extent (tree exp, poly_int64 *poffset, > > > > value_range vr; > > range_query *query; > > - if (cfun) > > - query = get_range_query (cfun); > > - else > > - query = get_global_range_query (); > > + query = get_range_query (cfun); > > > > if (TREE_CODE (index) == SSA_NAME > > && (low_bound = array_ref_low_bound (exp), > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.cc > > index 64464802c1e..e85a1881526 100644 > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.cc > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.cc > > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ split_at_bb_p (class loop *loop, basic_block bb, tree > > *border, affine_iv *iv, > > else > > { > > int_range<2> r; > > - get_global_range_query ()->range_of_expr (r, op0, stmt); > > + get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (r, op0, stmt); > > loop splitting doesn't have a ranger instance so this is a no-op change > but I'm also not sure it would be safe to use a dynamic ranger instance > here since we are doing even CFG manipulations between. Please leave > this change out. > > > if (!r.varying_p () && !r.undefined_p () > > && TREE_CODE (op1) == INTEGER_CST) > > { > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc > > index 619b50fb4bb..b3dc2ded931 100644 > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.cc > > @@ -764,7 +764,7 @@ evaluate_control_stmt_using_entry_checks (gimple *stmt, > > > > int_range_max r; > > if (!ranger->gori ().outgoing_edge_range_p (r, e, idx, > > - *get_global_range_query > > ())) > > + *get_range_query > > (cfun))) > > continue; > > unswitching has a ranger instance but it does perform IL modification. > Did you check whether the use of the global ranger was intentional here? > Specifically we do have the 'ranger' object here and IIRC using global > ranges was intentional. So please leave this change out. > > Thanks, > Richard. > > > r.intersect (path_range); > > if (r.undefined_p ()) > > > > -- > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, > Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
