This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable elimination of zext/sext


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>  if (rhs_uns)
>>>>    return wi::ge_p (min, 0);  // if min >= 0 then range contains positive values
>>>>  else
>>>>    return wi::le_p (max, wi::max_value (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE
>>>> (ssa)), SIGNED);  // if max <= signed-max-of-type then range doesn't
>>>> need sign-extension
>>>
>>> I think we will have to check that ssa has necessary sign/zero extension
>>> when assigned to lhs_type. If PROMOTE_MODE tells us that ssa's type will
>>> be interpreted differently, the value range of ssa also will have
>>> corresponding range.  In this cases, shouldnât we have to check for
>>> upper and lower limit for both min and max?
>>
>> Hmm?  That's exactly what the check is testing...  we know that
>> min <= max thus if min >= 0 then max >= 0.
>>
>> zero_extension will never do anything on [0, INF]
>>
>> If max < MAX-SIGNED then sign-extension will not do anything.  Ok,
>> sign-extension will do sth for negative values still.  So rather
>>
>>   if (rhs_uns)
>>     return wi::geu_p (min, 0);
>>   else
>>     return wi::ges_p (min, 0) && wi::les_p (max, wi::max_value
>> (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (ssa)), SIGNED));
>>
>> ?
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I agree. Donât we have to however check this
> on lhs_uns as this function is checking if ssa is promoted for lhs_sign
> and lhs_mode?
>
> Here is an attempt based on this. I ran regression testing with
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi on qemu-arm without any new regressions.
>
> Sine I am not comparing value ranges to see if it can be represented in
> lhs_sigh, I can now skip the PROMOTED_MODE check.

Now I'm lost.  You call this function from two contexts:

diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index a3e6faa..eac512f 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+++ b/gcc/calls.c
@@ -1484,7 +1484,10 @@ precompute_arguments (int num_actuals, struct
arg_data *args)
              args[i].initial_value
                = gen_lowpart_SUBREG (mode, args[i].value);
              SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P (args[i].initial_value) = 1;
-             SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (args[i].initial_value, args[i].unsignedp);
+             if (is_promoted_for_type (args[i].tree_value, mode,
!args[i].unsignedp))
+               SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (args[i].initial_value,
SRP_SIGNED_AND_UNSIGNED);
+             else
+               SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (args[i].initial_value, args[i].unsignedp);

and

@@ -9527,7 +9587,10 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target, enum
machine_mode tmode,

          temp = gen_lowpart_SUBREG (mode, decl_rtl);
          SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P (temp) = 1;
-         SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (temp, unsignedp);
+         if (is_promoted_for_type (ssa_name, mode, !unsignedp))
+           SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (temp, SRP_SIGNED_AND_UNSIGNED);
+         else
+           SUBREG_PROMOTED_SET (temp, unsignedp);
          return temp;
        }

what's the semantic of setting SRP_SIGNED_AND_UNSIGNED
on the subreg?  That is, for the created (subreg:lhs_mode
(reg:<PROMOTE_MODE of ssa> N))?

it seems that we need to verify that 'ssa', when promoted,
does not have bits set above the target modes MSB when
we know it is zero-extended (according to PROMOTE_MODE)?
Or has all bits set to one and is sign-extended (according to
PROMOTE_MODE)?

Now it seems that the promotion is according to
promote_{function,decl}_mode in expand_expr_real_1
and according to promote_mode in calls.c.

The function comment above promoted_for_type_p needs to be
more elaborate on what invariant it checks.  As you pass in
the subreg mode but you need to verify the larger mode is
properly extended.

> I am still using wide_int::from (instead of wi::max_value) to get the
> limit as I have to match the precision with min, max precision.
> otherwise wide_int comparisons will not work. Is there a better way for
> this?

I don't understand.  wi::max_value takes a precision argument.

>
> /* Return TRUE if value in SSA is already zero/sign extended for lhs type
>    (type here is the combination of LHS_MODE and LHS_UNS) using value range
>    information stored.  Return FALSE otherwise.  */
> bool
> promoted_for_type_p (tree ssa, enum machine_mode lhs_mode, bool lhs_uns)
> {
>   wide_int min, max, limit;
>   tree lhs_type;
>   bool rhs_uns;
>   signop rhs_signop;
>
>   if (ssa == NULL_TREE
>       || TREE_CODE (ssa) != SSA_NAME
>       || !INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (ssa)))
>     return false;
>
>   /* Return FALSE if value_range is not recorded for SSA.  */
>   if (get_range_info (ssa, &min, &max) != VR_RANGE)
>     return false;
>
>   rhs_uns = TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (ssa));
>   rhs_signop = rhs_uns ? UNSIGNED : SIGNED;
>   lhs_type = lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (lhs_mode, lhs_uns);
>   limit = wide_int::from (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (lhs_type),
>                           TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (ssa)), SIGNED);
>
>   if (lhs_uns)
>     /* If min >= 0 then range contains positive values and doesnt need
>        zero-extension.  */
>     return wi::ge_p (min, 0, rhs_signop);
>   else
>     /* If min >= 0 and max <= signed-max-of-type then range doesn't need
>        sign-extension.  */
>     return wi::ge_p (min, 0, rhs_signop) && wi::le_p (max, limit,
> rhs_signop);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]