Re: writing patterns

[Prathamesh Kulkarni <bilbotheelffriend at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<bilbotheelffriend@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> <bilbotheelffriend@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>    Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues writing patterns
>>> involving casts. I am trying to write patterns from simplify_rotate.
>>>
>>> Could you show me how to write a patterns that involve
>>> casts ?
>>> for eg:
>>> ((T) ((T2) X << CNT1)) + ((T) ((T2) X >> CNT2))     iff CNT1 + CNT2 == B
>>> T -> some unsigned type with bitsize B, and some type T2 wider than T.
>>> How to express this in the pattern ?
>>
>> [copying gcc@ because of the syntax stuff]
>>
>> for example with (leaving captures as the appear in the pattern above)
>>
>> (match_and_simplify
>>    (plus (convert@2 (lshift (convert@0 X) CNT1))
>>            (convert (rshift (convert@1 X) CNT2)))
>>     /* Types T2 have to match */
>>    (if (types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (@0), TREE_TYPE (@1))
>>         /* Type T should be unsigned.  */
>>        && TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@2))
>>        /* T2 should be wider than T.  */
>>        && TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@0)) > TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@2))
>>        /* CNT1 + CNT2 == B */
>>        && wi::eq_p (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@2)),
>>                            wi::add (CNT1, CNT2))))
>>    (lrotate CNT1))
>>
>> which suggests that we may want to add some type capturing / matching
>> so we can maybe write
>>
>>   (plus (convert@T (lshift (convert@T2 X) CNT1))
>>           (convert (rshift (convert@T2 X) CNT2)))
>>   (if (/* T2s will be matched automagically */
>>        && TYPE_UNSIGNED (@T)
>>        && TYPE_PRECISION (@T2) > TYPE_PRECISION (@T)
>>        && wi::eq_p (TYPE_PRECISION (@T), wi::add (CNT1, CNT2))))
>>
> Thanks.
>> which is less to type and supports requiring matching types.  Maybe
>> require @T[0-9]+ here thus use @T0 and disallow plain @T.  We could
>> then also use @T for the implicitely "captured" outermost type we
>> refer to as plain 'type' right now.
> What if we need to capture "value" as well as "type" ?
> for instance match type with another capture, and value with a
> different capture ?
>
> sth like: (bogus pattern):
> (match_and_simplify
>   (plus (minus@T@2 @0 @1) (mult@T @2 @3))
>   transform)
oops, @T was meant for outermost expression.
sth like: (plus (minus@T0@2 @0 @1) (mult@T0 @2 @3))
however this doesn't look good.

>
>> I suggest to go ahead without a new syntax for now and see if it
>> gets unwieldingly ugly without first.
>>
>>> For this week, I have planned:
>>> a) writing patterns from simplify_rotate
>>> b) replacing op in c_expr
>>> c) writing more test-cases.
>>>
>>> If there's anything else you would like me to do, I would be happy
>>> to know.
>>
>> Just keep an eye open for things like above - easy ways to reduce
>> typing for patterns.
>>
>> Btw, I suggest to split up match.pd by code you converted from.  Thus
>> for simplify_rotate add
>>
>>   match-simplify-rotate.pd
>>
>> with the patterns and do a #include "match-simplify-rotate.pd"
>> in match.pd.  That will make it easier to match the two later.
> Okay, should I correspondingly split bitwise patterns in
> match-simplify-bitwise.pd and the rest ?
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Prathamesh