Re: [PATCH 5/5] Rewrite second part of or_comparisons_1 into match.pd.

[Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>]

Hi.

Updated version of the patch that drops GENERIC
support in TREE codes.

Martin

>From 548ff649ae56e2f60ba4b2537d97c5bf085248d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:59:36 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Rewrite second part of or_comparisons_1 into match.pd.

gcc/ChangeLog:

2019-09-09  Martin Liska  <mliska@suse.cz>

	* gimple-fold.c (or_comparisons_1): Remove rules moved
	to ...
	* match.pd: ... here.
---
 gcc/gimple-fold.c | 45 ---------------------------------------------
 gcc/match.pd      | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.c b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
index dc8e8eef45c..5b79ebd711f 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-fold.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
@@ -6043,51 +6043,6 @@ or_comparisons_1 (tree type, enum tree_code code1, tree op1a, tree op1b,
 	return t;
     }
 
-  /* If both comparisons are of the same value against constants, we might
-     be able to merge them.  */
-  if (operand_equal_p (op1a, op2a, 0)
-      && TREE_CODE (op1b) == INTEGER_CST
-      && TREE_CODE (op2b) == INTEGER_CST)
-    {
-      int cmp = tree_int_cst_compare (op1b, op2b);
-
-      /* Chose the less restrictive of two < or <= comparisons.  */
-      if ((code1 == LT_EXPR || code1 == LE_EXPR)
-	       && (code2 == LT_EXPR || code2 == LE_EXPR))
-	{
-	  if ((cmp < 0) || (cmp == 0 && code1 == LT_EXPR))
-	    return fold_build2 (code2, boolean_type_node, op2a, op2b);
-	  else
-	    return fold_build2 (code1, boolean_type_node, op1a, op1b);
-	}
-
-      /* Likewise chose the less restrictive of two > or >= comparisons.  */
-      else if ((code1 == GT_EXPR || code1 == GE_EXPR)
-	       && (code2 == GT_EXPR || code2 == GE_EXPR))
-	{
-	  if ((cmp > 0) || (cmp == 0 && code1 == GT_EXPR))
-	    return fold_build2 (code2, boolean_type_node, op2a, op2b);
-	  else
-	    return fold_build2 (code1, boolean_type_node, op1a, op1b);
-	}
-
-      /* Check for singleton ranges.  */
-      else if (cmp == 0
-	       && ((code1 == LT_EXPR && code2 == GT_EXPR)
-		   || (code1 == GT_EXPR && code2 == LT_EXPR)))
-	return fold_build2 (NE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, op1a, op2b);
-
-      /* Check for less/greater pairs that don't restrict the range at all.  */
-      else if (cmp >= 0
-	       && (code1 == LT_EXPR || code1 == LE_EXPR)
-	       && (code2 == GT_EXPR || code2 == GE_EXPR))
-	return boolean_true_node;
-      else if (cmp <= 0
-	       && (code1 == GT_EXPR || code1 == GE_EXPR)
-	       && (code2 == LT_EXPR || code2 == LE_EXPR))
-	return boolean_true_node;
-    }
-
   /* Perhaps the first comparison is (NAME != 0) or (NAME == 1) where
      NAME's definition is a truth value.  See if there are any simplifications
      that can be done against the NAME's definition.  */
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index c465eabbb89..08b382fd2b9 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -2051,6 +2051,44 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
       (if (code1 == NE_EXPR && val) { constant_boolean_node (true, type); })
       (if (code1 == NE_EXPR && !val) @3))))))
 
+/* Convert (X OP1 CST1) || (X OP2 CST2).  */
+
+(for code1 (lt le gt ge)
+ (for code2 (lt le gt ge)
+  (simplify
+  (bit_ior (code1:c@3 @0 INTEGER_CST@1) (code2:c@4 @0 INTEGER_CST@2))
+   (with
+    {
+     int cmp = tree_int_cst_compare (@1, @2);
+    }
+    (switch
+     /* Choose the more restrictive of two < or <= comparisons.  */
+     (if ((code1 == LT_EXPR || code1 == LE_EXPR)
+	  && (code2 == LT_EXPR || code2 == LE_EXPR))
+      (if ((cmp < 0) || (cmp == 0 && code1 == LT_EXPR))
+       @4
+       @3))
+     /* Likewise chose the more restrictive of two > or >= comparisons.  */
+     (if ((code1 == GT_EXPR || code1 == GE_EXPR)
+	  && (code2 == GT_EXPR || code2 == GE_EXPR))
+      (if ((cmp > 0) || (cmp == 0 && code1 == GT_EXPR))
+       @4
+       @3))
+     /* Check for singleton ranges.  */
+     (if (cmp == 0
+	  && ((code1 == LT_EXPR && code2 == GT_EXPR)
+	      || (code1 == GT_EXPR && code2 == LT_EXPR)))
+      (ne @0 @2))
+     /* Check for disjoint ranges.  */
+     (if (cmp >= 0
+	  && (code1 == LT_EXPR || code1 == LE_EXPR)
+	  && (code2 == GT_EXPR || code2 == GE_EXPR))
+      { constant_boolean_node (true, type); })
+     (if (cmp <= 0
+	  && (code1 == GT_EXPR || code1 == GE_EXPR)
+	  && (code2 == LT_EXPR || code2 == LE_EXPR))
+      { constant_boolean_node (true, type); })
+     )))))
 
 /* We can't reassociate at all for saturating types.  */
 (if (!TYPE_SATURATING (type))
-- 
2.23.0