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][middle-end/88784] Middle end is missing some optimizations about unsigned


On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Li Jia He wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2019/7/1 3:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:55 PM Li Jia He <helijia@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 2019/6/27 11:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > > On 6/27/19 12:11 AM, Li Jia He wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > According to the optimizable case described by Qi Feng on
> > > > > > issue 88784, we can combine the cases into the following:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. x >  y  &&  x != XXX_MIN  -->   x > y
> > > > > > 2. x >  y  &&  x == XXX_MIN  -->   false
> > > > > > 3. x <= y  &&  x == XXX_MIN  -->   x == XXX_MIN
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 4. x <  y  &&  x != XXX_MAX  -->   x < y
> > > > > > 5. x <  y  &&  x == XXX_MAX  -->   false
> > > > > > 6. x >= y  &&  x == XXX_MAX  -->   x == XXX_MAX
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 7. x >  y  ||  x != XXX_MIN  -->   x != XXX_MIN
> > > > > > 8. x <= y  ||  x != XXX_MIN  -->   true
> > > > > > 9. x <= y  ||  x == XXX_MIN  -->   x <= y
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 10. x <  y  ||  x != XXX_MAX  -->   x != UXXX_MAX
> > > > > > 11. x >= y  ||  x != XXX_MAX  -->   true
> > > > > > 12. x >= y  ||  x == XXX_MAX  -->   x >= y
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Note: XXX_MIN represents the minimum value of type x.
> > > > > >         XXX_MAX represents the maximum value of type x.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here we don't need to care about whether the operation is
> > > > > > signed or unsigned.  For example, in the below equation:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 'x >  y  &&  x != XXX_MIN  -->   x > y'
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the x type is signed int and XXX_MIN is INT_MIN, we can
> > > > > > optimize it to 'x > y'.  However, if the type of x is unsigned
> > > > > > int and XXX_MIN is 0, we can still optimize it to 'x > y'.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The regression testing for the patch was done on GCC mainline on
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >       powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 9 LE)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > with no regressions.  Is it OK for trunk ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Lijia He
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2019-06-27  Li Jia He  <helijia@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > >           Qi Feng  <ffengqi@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >       PR middle-end/88784
> > > > > >       * gimple-fold.c (and_comparisons_contain_equal_operands): New
> > > > > > function.
> > > > > >       (and_comparisons_1): Use
> > > > > > and_comparisons_contain_equal_operands.
> > > > > >       (or_comparisons_contain_equal_operands): New function.
> > > > > >       (or_comparisons_1): Use or_comparisons_contain_equal_operands.
> > > > > Would this be better done via match.pd?  ISTM this transformation
> > > > > would
> > > > > be well suited for that framework.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi, Jeff
> > > > 
> > > > I did this because of the following test case:
> > > > `
> > > > _Bool comp(unsigned x, unsigned y)
> > > > {
> > > >     return x > y && x != 0;
> > > > }
> > > > `
> > > > The gimple file dumped on the power platform is:
> > > > `
> > > > comp (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
> > > > {
> > > >     _Bool D.2837;
> > > >     int iftmp.0;
> > > > 
> > > >     if (x > y) goto <D.2841>; else goto <D.2839>;
> > > >     <D.2841>:
> > > >     if (x != 0) goto <D.2842>; else goto <D.2839>;
> > > >     <D.2842>:
> > > >     iftmp.0 = 1;
> > > >     goto <D.2840>;
> > > >     <D.2839>:
> > > >     iftmp.0 = 0;
> > > >     <D.2840>:
> > > >     D.2837 = (_Bool) iftmp.0;
> > > >     return D.2837;
> > > > }
> > > > `
> > > > However, the gimple file dumped on x86 is
> > > > `
> > > > comp (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
> > > > {
> > > >     _Bool D.2837;
> > > > 
> > > >     _1 = x > y;
> > > >     _2 = x != 0;
> > > >     _3 = _1 & _2;
> > > >     _4 = (int) _3;
> > > >     D.2837 = (_Bool) _4;
> > > >     return D.2837;
> > > > }
> > > > `
> > > > 
> > > > The reason for the inconsistency between these two behaviors is param
> > > > logical-op-non-short-circuit.  If we add the pattern to the match.pd
> > > > file, we can only optimize the situation in which the statement is in
> > > > the same basic block (logical-op-non-short-circuit=1, x86).  But for
> > > > a cross-basic block (logical-op-non-short-circuit=0, power), match.pd
> > > > can't handle this situation.
> > > > 
> > > > Another reason is that I found out maybe_fold_and_comparisons and
> > > > maybe_fold_or_comparisons are not only called by ifcombine pass but
> > > > also by reassoc pass. Using this method can basically unify param
> > > > logical-op-non-short-circuit=0 or 1.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > As mentioned before ifcombine pass should be using gimple-match
> > > instead of fold_build.  Try converting ifcombine over to gimple-match
> > > infrastructure and add these to match.pd.
> > 
> > Yes, I mentioned that in the PR.  The issue is that at the moment
> > to combine x > y with x <= y you'd have to build GENERIC trees
> > for both or temporary GIMPLE assign with a SSA def (and then feed
> > that into the GENERIC or GIMPLE match.pd path).
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I did some experimentation using ‘temporary GIMPLE with a SSA def (and then
> feed that into the GIMPLE match.pd path’.  Could we consider the code in the
> attachment(I did a test and the code took effect)?

No, that's excessive overhead IMHO - the whole point of these functions
originally was to avoid build2 (...) on both conditionals.  If we
now create two SSA names and two GIMPLE statements that's too much.

As said it shouldn't be rocket science to teach genmatch to
auto-generate those functions from match.pd patterns but it certainly
is some work (less so for somebody with genmatch knowledge).
I'll give it a poke...

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Lijia He
> 
> > 
> > maybe_fold_and/or_comparisons handle two exploded binary expressions
> > while the current match.pd entries handle at most one exploded one
> > (the outermost then, either AND or OR).  But it would be definitely
> > doable to auto-generate maybe_fold_and/or_comparisons from match.pd
> > patterns which is what I'd ultimatively suggest to do (in some more
> > generalized form maybe).  Either with a separate genmatch invocation
> > or as part of the --gimple processing (not sure what is more feasible
> > here).
> > 
> > I told Li Jia He that I don't expect him to do this work.
> > 
> > Note I didn't review the actual patch yet.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> > 
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

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