[EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] PR tree-optimization/96779 Adding a missing pattern to match.pd

Richard Biener richard.guenther@gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 08:45:55 GMT 2021


On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:33 PM Navid Rahimi <navidrahimi@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the detailed comment. I am attaching a newer version of the patch which does have required fixes included. Bellow you can see my response to your feedbacks:
>
> > you need to check TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS on TREE_TYPE (@0),
> > otherwise you check on boolean.
> Fixed it.
>
> > no need for :c on the result pattern.  Otherwise it looks OK, but how
> > did you check the patch?
> Fixed it. For checking the patch, I have script which builds and runs make check for 1) trunk and 2) trunk+patch in a separate directory and diffs the test results from each directory. My test script did had a subtle problem. The bug was, because of a typo in the path I introduced few days ago, it was diffing same trunk+patch test results against trunk+patch test results.

OK, please indicate that in the future, like with "Bootstrapped and
tested on x86_64-linux" or so.

> That was a good reminder to setup an account for myself here asap [1].
>
> 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm

The updated patch is OK.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Best wishes,
> Navid.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 03:43
> To: Navid Rahimi
> Cc: Navid Rahimi via Gcc-patches
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] PR tree-optimization/96779 Adding a missing pattern to match.pd
>
> [You don't often get email from richard.guenther@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:51 PM Navid Rahimi via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi GCC community,
> >
> > This patch will add the missed pattern described in bug 102232 [1] to the match.pd.
> >
> > Tree-optimization/96779: Adding new optimization to match.pd:
> >
> >             * match.pd (-x == x) -> (x == 0): New optimization.
> >             * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr96779.c: testcase for this optimization.
> >             * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr96779-disabled.c: testcase for this optimization when -fwrapv passed.
> >
> > 1) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gnu.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D96779&data=04%7C01%7Cnavidrahimi%40microsoft.com%7C11c3214ef8164af4d50008d9ab51d9bc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637729190792397989%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=mxYBk6rex%2Bq5UMot%2BWfJqXeTYEYuM16hrvLGyp4PGeI%3D&reserved=0
>
> +/* -x == x -> x == 0 */
> +(for cmp (eq ne)
> + (simplify
> +  (cmp:c @0 (negate @0))
> +   (if (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
> +        && !TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type))
>
> you need to check TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS on TREE_TYPE (@0),
> otherwise you check on boolean.
>
> +    (cmp:c @0 { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE(@0)); }))))
> +
>
> no need for :c on the result pattern.  Otherwise it looks OK, but how
> did you check the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>
> > Best wishes,
> > Navid.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list