[PUSHED 4/8] Adjust op_with_boolean_value_range_p for irange API.

Richard Biener richard.guenther@gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 06:55:07 GMT 2020


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:39 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that we should also check for [0,0] and [1,1] in the
> range, but I am leaving things as is to avoid functional changes.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>         * vr-values.c (simplify_using_ranges::op_with_boolean_value_range_p): Adjust
>         for irange API.
> ---
>  gcc/vr-values.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/vr-values.c b/gcc/vr-values.c
> index 609375c072e..1190fa96453 100644
> --- a/gcc/vr-values.c
> +++ b/gcc/vr-values.c
> @@ -448,10 +448,11 @@ simplify_using_ranges::op_with_boolean_value_range_p (tree op)
>    if (TREE_CODE (op) != SSA_NAME)
>      return false;
>
> +  /* ?? Errr, this should probably check for [0,0] and [1,1] as well
> +     as [0,1].  */
>    const value_range *vr = get_value_range (op);
> -  return (vr->kind () == VR_RANGE
> -         && integer_zerop (vr->min ())
> -         && integer_onep (vr->max ()));
> +  return *vr == value_range (build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (op)),
> +                            build_one_cst (TREE_TYPE (op)));

This now builds trees in a predicate which is highly dubious.  Isn't
there a better (cheaper) primitive to build a [0, 1] range to compare against?
I guess from what I read it will also allocate memory for the range entry?

Richard.


>  }
>
>  /* Extract value range information for VAR when (OP COND_CODE LIMIT) is
> --
> 2.26.2
>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list