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 tree-optimization]: Avoid !=/== 0/1 comparisons for boolean-typed argument


2011/8/2 Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> this patch removes in forward-propagation useless comparisons X != 0
>> and X != ~0 for boolean-typed X. ?For one-bit precision typed X we
>> simplifiy X == 0 (and X != ~0) to ~X, and for X != 0 (and X == ~0) to
>> X.
>> For none one-bit precisione typed X, we simplify here X == 0 -> X ^ 1,
>> and for X != 0 -> X. ?We can do this as even for Ada - which has only
>> boolean-type with none-one-bit precision - the truth-value is one.
>
> This isn't a simplification but a canonicalization and thus should be
> done by fold_stmt instead (we are not propagating anything after all).
> In fact, fold_stmt should do parts of this already by means of its
> canonicalizations via fold.

Well, it simplifies and canonicalizes.  But to put this into
gimple-fold looks better.

>> Additionally this patch changes for function
>> forward_propagate_comparison the meaning of true-result. ?As this
>> result wasn't used and it is benefitial to use this propagation also
>
> which is a bug - for a true return value we need to set cfg_changed to true.

I addressed this in my updated patch (see below)

>> in second loop in function ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine, it
>> returns true iff statement was altered. ?Additionally this function
>> handles now the boolean-typed simplifications.
>
> why call it twice? ?How should that be "beneficial"? ?I think that
> forward_propagate_into_comparison should instead fold the changed
> statement.

Well, due missing fold_stmt call, there were still none-converted
comparisons. I've added here the call to fold_stmt_inplace, and it
solved the issue.

>> For the hunk in gimple.c for function canonicalize_cond_expr_cond:
>> This change seems to show no real effect, but IMHO it makes sense to
>> add here the check for cast from boolean-type to be consitant.
>
> Probably yes.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.


2011-08-02  Kai Tietz  <ktietz@redhat.com>

       * gimple.c (canonicalize_cond_expr_cond): Handle cast from boolean-type.
       (ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine): Interprete result of
       forward_propagate_comparison.
       * gcc/gimple-fold.c (fold_gimple_assign): Add canonicalization for
       boolean-typed operands for comparisons.

2011-08-02  Kai Tietz  <ktietz@redhat.com>

        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-15.c: New testcase.

Regression tested and bootstrapped for all languages (including Ada
and Obj-C++).  Ok for apply?

Regards,
Kai

Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-15.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-15.c
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-forwprop1" }  */
+
+_Bool
+foo (_Bool a, _Bool b, _Bool c
+{
+  _Bool r1 = a == 0 & b != 0;
+  _Bool r2 = b != 0 & c == 0;
+  return (r1 == 0 & r2 == 0);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " == " 0 "forwprop1" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " != " 0 "forwprop1" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "forwprop1" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/gimple-fold.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.orig/gcc/gimple-fold.c
+++ gcc/gcc/gimple-fold.c
@@ -814,6 +814,34 @@ fold_gimple_assign (gimple_stmt_iterator
 					     gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt),
 					     gimple_assign_rhs2 (stmt));
 	}
+      else if (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt) == EQ_EXPR
+               || gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt) == NE_EXPR)
+        {
+	  tree op1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
+	  tree op2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (stmt);
+	  tree type = TREE_TYPE (op1);
+	  if (useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)),
+	  				 type)
+	      && TREE_CODE (op2) == INTEGER_CST)
+	    {
+	      gimple s;
+	      bool inverted = (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt) == EQ_EXPR);
+	      if (!integer_zerop (op2))
+		inverted = !inverted;
+
+	      if (inverted == false)
+	        result = op1;
+	      else if (TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME
+	      	       && (s = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (op1)) != NULL
+	      	       && is_gimple_assign (s)
+	      	       && gimple_assign_rhs_code (s) == BIT_NOT_EXPR)
+	      	result = gimple_assign_rhs1 (s);
+	     else
+	        result = build1_loc (gimple_location (stmt), BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, op1);
+	
+	    }
+	
+	}

       if (!result)
         result = fold_binary_loc (loc, subcode,
Index: gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
+++ gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
@@ -469,6 +469,9 @@ forward_propagate_into_comparison (gimpl
     {
       gimple_assign_set_rhs_from_tree (gsi, tmp);
       update_stmt (stmt);
+      if (fold_stmt_inplace (stmt))
+        update_stmt (stmt);
+
       if (TREE_CODE (rhs1) == SSA_NAME)
 	cfg_changed |= remove_prop_source_from_use (rhs1);
       if (TREE_CODE (rhs2) == SSA_NAME)
@@ -2407,7 +2410,8 @@ ssa_forward_propagate_and_combine (void)
 	    }
 	  else if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_comparison)
 	    {
-	      forward_propagate_comparison (stmt);
+	      if (forward_propagate_comparison (stmt))
+	        cfg_changed = true;
 	      gsi_next (&gsi);
 	    }
 	  else


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