[RFC] Meta-description for tree and gimple folding
Marc Glisse
marc.glisse@inria.fr
Wed Mar 12 09:16:00 GMT 2014
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you handle a
>>>> transformation that currently tries to recursively fold something else and
>>>> does the main transformation only if that simplified?
>>>
>>> And doesn't do the other folding (because it's not in the IL literally?)?
>>> Similar to the cst without overflow case, by writing custom C code
>>> and allowing that to signal failure.
>>
>> Note that for this kind of simplification, it can be inconvenient to have
>> canonicalization included with the "real" simplifications. Imagine I am
>> looking at (x?3:5)+y. If 3+y "simplifies" to y+3 and 5+y "simplifies" to y+5,
>> then it looks worth it to replace the expression with x?y+3:(y+5).
>>
>> Would there be a convenient way to separate them, so it can tell me that 3+y
>> should be replaced with y+3 but that it is not a simplification?
>
> You could certainly "mark" those patterns in a special way (though
> the specific case, 3 + y to y + 3 will happen behind patterns back,
> so in this case it won't tell you that 3 + y simplifies).
Ah, that's good, maybe what I was asking for is mostly already there :-)
> Note that
> you can't write patterns that apply "if 3 + y simplifies", at
> least not without doing sth as awkward as
>
> (match_and_simplify
> (plus (cond @0 @1 @2) @3)
> if (gimple_match_and_simplify (PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (@1), @1, @3, NULL,
> NULL)
> || gimple_match_and_simplify (PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (@2), @2, @3,
> NULL, NULL))
> (cond @0 (plus @1 @3) (plus @2 @3)))
I think it's ok having to write something a bit longer when doing
complicated things, as long as it is doable at all.
> that is, very much do extra work.
Ah, because the simplification of each PLUS_EXPR will be done twice?
> OTOH, I'd rather avoid adding those kind of patterns for now. There
> are interesting enough challenges with existing "simple" ones.
Sure.
--
Marc Glisse
More information about the Gcc
mailing list