This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: PTR-PLUS merge into the mainline


On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> > Well, that's always the nature of any canonicalization.
> 
> Well, I can't say that I agree with your canonicalization, but...
> 
> > of course only tested on this particular testcase.  It just shows
> > that it is possible to fix this in a generic way.
> 
> let's take the particular test case I care about:
> 
> int foo(int *p, unsigned int i)
> {
> 	return p[i + 1] + p[i + 2];
> }
> 
> How should this be optimized within the context of your canonicalization?

For example by making fold_plusminus_mult_expr do what its comment
suggest, "No identical multiplicands; see if we can find a common
power-of-two factor ..."

Can you try the following and see if it helps m68k?

Index: fold-const.c
===================================================================
*** fold-const.c	(revision 126376)
--- fold-const.c	(working copy)
*************** fold_plusminus_mult_expr (enum tree_code
*** 7122,7127 ****
--- 7122,7132 ----
        arg00 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0);
        arg01 = TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1);
      }
+   else if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == INTEGER_CST)
+     {
+       arg00 = build_one_cst (type);
+       arg01 = arg0;
+     }
    else
      {
        arg00 = arg0;
*************** fold_plusminus_mult_expr (enum tree_code
*** 7132,7137 ****
--- 7137,7147 ----
        arg10 = TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0);
        arg11 = TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1);
      }
+   else if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == INTEGER_CST)
+     {
+       arg10 = build_one_cst (type);
+       arg11 = arg1;
+     }
    else
      {
        arg10 = arg1;


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