Hi,
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > 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 Thanks so much for your quick review! > >> >> 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. Oh, yeap. There is no local ranger, and 'bound' is SSA_NAME, and SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO is there. get_global_range_query should be used. > >> 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. Yes. > >> 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. Oh, yes, get_global_range_query would be prefer here. > >> 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 for pointing this out! BR, Jeff (Jiufu Guo) > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> r.intersect (path_range); >> if (r.undefined_p ()) >>
