This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:59:31 +0000
- Subject: Re: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528288B3 dot 8010109 at redhat dot com> <20131112203509 dot GC27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAD_=9DQRZy92RCJEopO=XHMj9+eDHQ0MW1g__ZaFNNrWQW=QNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc38jGfAaWwo5OWTxmQnNeP9=f5McGrW_3HCNJotvbBtKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABu31nOpcf1EivKXYy-i4Czm84aSv+hOYhrSPpefzNVTjjNW0Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Really the best place to start IMHO would be to evict 'tree' from the
> front ends. That would really be a step towards making the front ends
> independent of the rest of the compiler, and it would simplify changes
> towards static 'tree' types.
From a C perspective, a useful change that would facilitate moving the IR
away from tree would be moving most of fold to operate on GIMPLE instead
of on trees (that is, rewriting it as GIMPLE optimizations; I don't think
this can be a mechanical refactoring).
There are at least the following types of folding that can get called from
the C front end:
(a) Folding required for standard language semantics of constant
(b) Other trivial folding (e.g. && || ?: with constant controlling
expression, even if the ignored half isn't valid in ISO C constant
expressions; comma operators whose LHS has no side effects; __builtin
function calls with constant operands; differences of addresses within an
object with static storage duration). Needed in many cases for GNU C
semantics (implementing ISO C constant expression semantics showed that
many cases did in fact need folding, with just pedwarns-if-pedantic if
something should be a constant expression but isn't in ISO C terms,
because code bases such as the Linux kernel used such not-ISO-constant
expressions in places needing constant expressions). Needed in some cases
for ISO C semantics in the standard library (e.g. __builtin_nanf ("") is
what we provide for a library to define NAN, which must be usable in
(c) More complicated optimization transforms that aren't really constant
folding but are done by fold-const.c.
(d) Like (c), but done in convert.c (see convert_to_real for example).
(e) Like (c), but done in the front end (including c-family/ code, see
Types (c), (d) and (e) should become GIMPLE optimizations (everything in
(a) and (b) should *also* be done on GIMPLE when GIMPLE optimizations
result in operands being constant, but I hope that's already the case).
That would massively reduce the amount of folding code called by the C
front end, so making what's left much easier to reimplement on a better IR
(the reimplementation would still need to call into language-independent
code e.g. for built-in functions with constant operands, but I don't think
that's a problem to handle with different IR in front end and middle end).
(i) Distinguishing (c), (d) and (e) from (b) can be tricky; GNU/Linux
distribution rebuilds would be helpful in making sure changes didn't
remove too much from fold.
(ii) Some places where the C front end calls c_fully_fold before complete
expressions have been built up are because warnings rely on
transformations carried out by fold in order to avoid false positives
(i.e. there were failures of warning testcases unless the folding was
done). I think this is generally about warnings relating to implicit
conversions. So to the extent that such transformations would otherwise
fall in (c), (d) or (e), maybe the GIMPLE needs annotating in some way "if
this conversion can change the numerical value of its operand, give this
warning", with the warnings then being output after enough optimization
has taken place.
Joseph S. Myers