On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard Biener
>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>>> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I was wondering if it was a good idea to implement
>>>>> predicate on expressions ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sth like:
>>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>>> (op (op2:predicate @0))
>>>>> transform)
>>>>>
>>>>> instead of:
>>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>>> (op (op2@1 @0))
>>>>> if (predicate (@1))
>>>>> transform)
>>>>>
>>>>> When predicate is simple as just being a macro/function,
>>>>> we could use this style and when the predicate is more complex
>>>>> resort to using if-expr (or write the predicate as macro in
>>>>> gimple-match-head.c
>>>>> and use the macro in pattern instead ...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> we could rewrite the pattern
>>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>>> (plus:c @0 (negate @1))
>>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type))
>>>>> (minus @0 @1))
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>>> (plus:c:NOT_TYPE_SATURATING_P @0 (negate @1))
>>>>> (minus @0 @1))
>>>>>
>>>>> with NOT_TYPE_SATURATING_P predicate defined
>>>>> appropriately in gimple-match-head.c
>>>>>
>>>>> However I am not entirely sure if adding predicates on expressions
>>>>> would be very useful....
>>>>
>>>> Well. I think there are two aspects to this. First is pattern
>>>> readability where I think that the if-expr form is more readable.
>>>> Second is the ability to do less work in the code generated
>>>> from the decision tree.
>>>>
>>>> For example most of the patterns from associate_plusminus
>>>> still miss the !TYPE_SATURATING && !FLOAT_TYPE_P &&
>>>> !FIXED_POINT_TYPE_P if-expr. That is, we'd have
>>>>
>>>> /* (A +- B) - A -> +-B. */
>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>> (minus (plus @0 @1) @0)
>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type)
>>>> && !FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) && !FIXED_POINT_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> @1)
>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>> (minus (minus @0 @1) @0)
>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type)
>>>> && !FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) && !FIXED_POINT_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> (negate @1))
>>>> /* (A +- B) -+ B -> A. */
>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>> (minus (plus @0 @1) @1)
>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type)
>>>> && !FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) && !FIXED_POINT_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> @0)
>>>> (match_and_simplify
>>>> (plus:c (minus @0 @1) @1)
>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type)
>>>> && !FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) && !FIXED_POINT_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> @0)
>>>>
>>>> with code-generation checking the if-expr after matching. And
>>>> with using expression predicates we'd be able to check the
>>>> predicate when matching the outermost 'minus' and "CSE"
>>>> the predicate check for the first three patterns. Runtime-wise
>>>> it depends on whether there is a point to back-track to.
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's more interesting to support
>>>>
>>>> if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type) && !FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) &&
>>>> !FiXED_POINT_TYPE_P (type))
>>>> (match_and_simplify ....)
>>>> (match_and_simplify ....)
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> and treat this if-expression like a predicate on the outermost
>>>> expression. That's getting both benefits
>>>> (bah, the free-form if-expr makes it ugly, what do we use as
>>>> grouping syntax? I guess wrapping the whole thing in ()s,
>>>> similar to (for ...)).
>>> Um, I was wondering instead of defining new syntax
>>> if it would be better to make genmatch detect common if-expr
>>> and hoist them ? I suppose we could compare if-expr's lexicographically ?
>>>
>>> However I guess having some syntax to group common if-expr patterns
>>> explicitly would
>>> avoid the need for writing the if-expr in each pattern.
>>
>> Yeah, the main motiviation is to make the patterns itself easier to read
>> and group them by boiler-plate if-exprs.
>>
>>> For now should we go with free-form if ?
>>
>> I'd say
>>
>> (if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type) ....)
>> <patterns...>
>> )
>>
>> thus wrap the if inside ()s. Otherwise there would be no way to
>> "end" an if.
> maybe use braces ?
> if (c_expr)
> {
> patterns
> }
> but (if ...) is better.
>>
>>> If desired, we could change syntax later to
>>> something else (only parsing code need change, the rest would be in place).
>>> If we change the syntax for outer-if, for consistency should we also
>>> change syntax of inner if ?
>>
>> Probably yes, let's wrap the inner if inside ()s as well.
> Okay.
>>
>> Code-generation-wise we should record a vector of if-exprs and thus
>> evaluate the outer ifs at the same place we evaluate inner if-exprs.
> Um, I don't get this.
> say we have the following pattern:
> (if cond
> (match_and_simplify
> match1
> transform1)
>
> (match_and_simplify
> match2
> transform2))
>
> The generated code would be the following ?
> if (cond)
> {
> match1
> transform1
>
> match2
> transform2
> }
>
> Currently we do:
> match1
> if (cond)
> transform1
>
> match2
> if (cond)
> transform2
I was thinking about
(if cond1
(match_and_simplify
match1
if cond2
transform1)
(match_and_simplify
match2
if cond3
transform2))
where we should generate
match1
if (cond1 && cond2)
transform1
match2
if (cond1 && cond3)
transform2
and eventually even allow nested outer ifs (why not)
(if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (type))
(if (...)
(match...
)
(match ...)
)
like some of the simplifications are grouped in fold-const.c. Easiest
would be to make the simplifier if-expr a vector of if-expr, replicating
the currently active outer if conditions.
Richard.
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prathamesh
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Prathamesh
>>>>
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>>> Prathamesh
