[PATCH] libgccjit: Handle truncation and extension for casts [PR 95498]

Antoni Boucher bouanto@zoho.com
Fri Jun 18 21:11:58 GMT 2021


Ok.
Here's the patch with the updated subject and with format fixed.

Le vendredi 18 juin 2021 à 16:54 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:42 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > I'm sending the patch once again for review.
> > 
> > As it's the first time I'll land a patch, I'm not sure what needs
> > to be
> > done when it's approved.
> > Do I just commit it to the master branch directly?
> 
> Commit (and push), yes, but...
> 
> Please ensure the subject line of the commit matches our policy:
> 
> "libgccjit: Handle truncation and extension for casts [PR95498]"
> 
> is a good subject, whereas:
> 
> "This patch handles truncation and extension for casts in jit."
> 
> is not.
> 
> We have some hooks that will only accept pushes if the commit message
> has a correctly formatted ChangeLog.  The hooks ought to also add
> notification comments to bugzilla for any bugs mentioned in the
> commit
> message.
> 
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html#checkin
> 
> 
> FWIW in my own workflow I have a writable working copy that I keep
> for
> just doing pushes; 
> I do a
>   git pull
> verify the build, then
>   git am FOO.patch --ignore-date
> to apply the patch that was tested and approved, then do a last test
> with that, then
>   git push
> 
> That way I only push the patches that I've tested and have been
> approved, and the other ones are in an entirely separate working
> copy.
> This may be overkill though.
> 
> I'm also on #gcc IRC right now on OFTC (dmalcolm) if you run into
> issues.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Le vendredi 11 juin 2021 à 13:49 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 21:22 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > Here's the patch with the condition removed.
> > > > I believe everything is now fixed.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Thanks; this looks good to me.  Is this the latest version of the
> > > patch; would you like me to apply it?
> > > 
> > > Dave
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Le jeudi 27 mai 2021 à 18:21 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> > > > > On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 20:16 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > > I updated the patch according to the comments by Tom
> > > > > > Tromey.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There's one question left about your question regarding
> > > > > > C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR, David:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am not sure if we can get a C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR from
> > > > > > libgccjit,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > indeed seems like it's only created in c-family.
> > > > > > However, we do use it in libgccjit here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c#L1180
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I tried removing the condition `if (TREE_CODE (t_ret) !=
> > > > > > C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR)` and all the tests of libgccjit still
> > > > > > pass.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That code was copied from here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-convert.c#L175
> > > > > > and might not be needed in libgccjit.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Should I just remove the condition, then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think so.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Dave
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Le jeudi 13 mai 2021 à 19:58 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 19:31 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your answer.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > See my answers below:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Le jeudi 13 mai 2021 à 18:13 -0400, David Malcolm a
> > > > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2021-02-20 at 17:17 -0500, Antoni Boucher via
> > > > > > > > > Gcc-
> > > > > > > > > patches
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback!
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sorry about the delay in responding.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > In the past I was hesitant about adding more cast
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > libgccjit
> > > > > > > > > since I felt that the user could always just create a
> > > > > > > > > union
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cast.  Then I tried actually using the libgccjit API
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > realized how much work it adds, so I now think we do
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > casting more types.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > See answers below:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:20:35AM -0700, Tom
> > > > > > > > > > Tromey
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Antoni" == Antoni Boucher via Gcc-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patches
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <   
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> gcc/jit/
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni>         PR target/95498
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni>         * jit-playback.c: Add support to
> > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > truncation
> > > > > > > > > > > and extension
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni>         in the convert function.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +  switch (dst_code)
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +    {
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +    case INTEGER_TYPE:
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +    case ENUMERAL_TYPE:
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      t_ret = convert_to_integer
> > > > > > > > > > > (dst_type,
> > > > > > > > > > > expr);
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      goto maybe_fold;
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +    default:
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      gcc_assert
> > > > > > > > > > > (gcc::jit::active_playback_ctxt);
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      gcc::jit::active_playback_ctxt-
> > > > > > > > > > > > add_error
> > > > > > > > > > > (NULL,
> > > > > > > > > > > "unhandled conversion");
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      fprintf (stderr, "input
> > > > > > > > > > > expression:\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      debug_tree (expr);
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      fprintf (stderr, "requested
> > > > > > > > > > > type:\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      debug_tree (dst_type);
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      return error_mark_node;
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +    maybe_fold:
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      if (TREE_CODE (t_ret) !=
> > > > > > > > > > > C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Do we even get C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR in libgccjit?  That
> > > > > > > > > tree
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > defined in c-family/c-common.def; how can nodes of
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > > outside of the c-family?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I am not sure, but that seems like it's only created in
> > > > > > > > c-
> > > > > > > > family
> > > > > > > > indeed.
> > > > > > > > However, we do use it in libgccjit here:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c#L1180
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +       t_ret = fold (t_ret);
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> +      return t_ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems weird to have a single 'goto' to
> > > > > > > > > > > maybe_fold,
> > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > a switch like this.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > If you think the maybe_fold code won't be reused,
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > hoisted up and the 'goto' removed.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > This actually depends on how the support for cast
> > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > integers
> > > > > > > > > > and 
> > > > > > > > > > pointers will be implemented (see below).
> > > > > > > > > > If we will support truncating pointers (does that
> > > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > sense?
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > I 
> > > > > > > > > > guess we cannot extend a pointer unless we add the
> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > for 
> > > > > > > > > > uint128_t), that label will be reused for that
> > > > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, it might not be reused.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > So, please tell me which option to choose and I'll
> > > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > patch.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > FWIW I don't think we'll want to support truncating
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > extending
> > > > > > > > > pointers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Ok, but do you think we'll want to support casts
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > integers
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > pointers?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, though we probably want to reject truncating a
> > > > > > > pointer
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > smaller integer type.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I opened an issue about this
> > > > > > > > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95438)
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > willing to do a patch for it eventually.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, if the maybe_fold code might
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > reused
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > case, then I suppose I would have the case end
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > 'break'
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > have this code outside the switch.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > In another message, you wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> For your question, the current code
> > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > boolean and
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> reals and casts between integers and
> > > > > > > > > > > pointers
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > Antoni> supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I am curious why this wasn't supported.  It seems
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > one might want to do.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I have no idea as this is my first contribution to
> > > > > > > > > > gcc.
> > > > > > > > > > But this would be indeed very useful and I opened
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > this: 
> > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95438
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-libgccjit-Handle-truncation-and-extension-for-casts-.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20210618/bc0203c6/attachment.bin>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list