Re: [patch 1/8 tree-optimization]: Bitwise logic for fold_truth_not_expr

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2011/7/13 Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Sorrty, the TRUTH_NOT_EXPR isn't here the point at all. The underlying
>>> issue is that fold-const re-inttroduces TRUTH_AND/OR and co.
>>
>> I'm very sure it doesn't re-constrct TRUTH_ variants out of thin air
>> when you present it with BIT_ variants as input.
>
> Well, look into fold-const's fold_binary_loc function and see
>
> ?/* ARG0 is the first operand of EXPR, and ARG1 is the second operand.
>
> ? ? First check for cases where an arithmetic operation is applied to a
> ? ? compound, conditional, or comparison operation. ?Push the arithmetic
> ? ? operation inside the compound or conditional to see if any folding
> ? ? can then be done. ?Convert comparison to conditional for this purpose.
> ? ? The also optimizes non-constant cases that used to be done in
> ? ? expand_expr.
>
> ? ? Before we do that, see if this is a BIT_AND_EXPR or a BIT_IOR_EXPR,
> ? ? one of the operands is a comparison and the other is a comparison, a
> ? ? BIT_AND_EXPR with the constant 1, or a truth value. ?In that case, the
> ? ? code below would make the expression more complex. ?Change it to a
> ? ? TRUTH_{AND,OR}_EXPR. ?Likewise, convert a similar NE_EXPR to
> ? ? TRUTH_XOR_EXPR and an EQ_EXPR to the inversion of a TRUTH_XOR_EXPR. ?*/
>
> ?if ((code == BIT_AND_EXPR || code == BIT_IOR_EXPR
> ? ? ? || code == EQ_EXPR || code == NE_EXPR)
> ? ? ?&& ((truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg0))
> ? ? ? ? ? && (truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg1))
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? || (TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? && integer_onep (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1)))))
> ? ? ? ? ?|| (truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg1))
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?&& (truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg0))
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|| (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?&& integer_onep (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)))))))
> ? ?{
> ? ? ?tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, code == BIT_AND_EXPR ? TRUTH_AND_EXPR
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? : code == BIT_IOR_EXPR ? TRUTH_OR_EXPR
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? : TRUTH_XOR_EXPR,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? boolean_type_node,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fold_convert_loc (loc, boolean_type_node, arg0),
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fold_convert_loc (loc, boolean_type_node, arg1));
>
> ? ? ?if (code == EQ_EXPR)
> ? ? ? ?tem = invert_truthvalue_loc (loc, tem);
>
> ? ? ?return fold_convert_loc (loc, type, tem);
> ? ?}
>
> Here unconditionally TRUTH_AND/TRUTH_OR gets introduced, if operands
> are of kind truth. ?This is btw the point, why you see that those
> cases are handled. ?But as soon as this part is turned off for BIT_-
> IOR/AND, we need to do the folding for 1-bit precision case explicit.

First of all this checks for a quite complex pattern - where do we pass
such complex pattern from the gimple level to fold?  For the EQ/NE_EXPR
case forwprop probably might be able to feed it that, but then how does
it go wrong?  The above could also simply be guarded by !in_gimple_form.

Richard.