This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][RFC] Make expansion of balanced binary trees of switches on tree level.
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:21:24 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Make expansion of balanced binary trees of switches on tree level.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <b9bed4ff-cbb3-4d33-f54f-0f5a45b421e9@suse.cz> <CAFiYyc04cS6qBcReZqx77_=sLw99gfYEPC7YFMsYpOoRRrZxWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert the code
>> to expand gswitch statements on tree level. Currently the newly created pass is executed
>> at the end of tree optimizations.
Hah, something I promissed myself (and others) to do years ago! Thanks
thanks thanks! :-)
>> My plan for future is to inspire in [1] and come up with some more sophisticated switch
>> expansions. For that I've been working on a paper where I'll summarize statistics based
>> on what I've collected in openSUSE distribution with specially instrumented GCC. If I'll be
>> happy I can also fit in to schedule of this year's Cauldron with a talk.
Sayle's paper is a good starting point. Also interesting:
>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> First of all thanks.
>
> I think part of switch expansion moved to switch-conversion some time ago
> (emit_case_bit_tests). So maybe the full lowering should be in at least
> the same source file and it should maybe applied earlier for a subset of
> cases (very low number of cases for example).
>
> Did you base the code on the RTL expansion code or did you re-write it from
> scratch?
>
> No further comments sofar.
>
> Richard.
>
>> Martin
>>
>> [1] https://www.nextmovesoftware.com/technology/SwitchOptimization.pdf
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-07-31 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>
>> * Makefile.in: Add gimple-switch-low.o.
>> * passes.def: Include pass_lower_switch.
>> * stmt.c (dump_case_nodes): Remove and move to
>> gimple-switch-low.c.
>> (case_values_threshold): Likewise.
>> (expand_switch_as_decision_tree_p): Likewise.
>> (emit_case_decision_tree): Likewise.
>> (expand_case): Likewise.
>> (balance_case_nodes): Likewise.
>> (node_has_low_bound): Likewise.
>> (node_has_high_bound): Likewise.
>> (node_is_bounded): Likewise.
>> (emit_case_nodes): Likewise.
>> * timevar.def: Add TV_TREE_SWITCH_LOWERING.
>> * tree-pass.h: Add make_pass_lower_switch.
>> * gimple-switch-low.c: New file.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-07-31 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>
>> * gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c: Scan patterns in
>> switchlower.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp104.c: Likewise.
>> ---
>> gcc/Makefile.in | 1 +
>> gcc/gimple-switch-low.c | 1226 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> gcc/passes.def | 1 +
>> gcc/stmt.c | 861 -----------------
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c | 10 +-
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp104.c | 2 +-
>> gcc/timevar.def | 1 +
>> gcc/tree-pass.h | 1 +
>> 8 files changed, 1236 insertions(+), 867 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 gcc/gimple-switch-low.c
>>
>>