On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This is a rework of >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02007.html. >>> Though review comments suggested it could be merged with last kind >>> simplification >>> of fold_cond_expr_with_comparison, it's not really applicable. As a matter >>> of fact, >>> the suggestion stands for patch >>> @https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html. >>> I had previous patch >>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01898.html) >>> moving fold_cond_expr_with_comparison to match.pd pattern and incorporated >>> that patch into it. For this one, the rework is trivial, just renames >>> several variable >>> tags as suggested. Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64, is it OK? >> >> + A) Operand x is a unsigned to signed type conversion and c1 is >> + integer zero. In this case, >> + (signed type)x < 0 <=> x > MAX_VAL(signed type) >> + (signed type)x >= 0 <=> x <= MAX_VAL(signed type) >> >> for (singed type)x < 0 -> x > signed-type-max we probably do a reverse >> "canonicalization" transform? Yeah, >> >> /* Non-equality compare simplifications from fold_binary */ >> (for cmp (lt gt le ge) >> ... >> (if (wi::eq_p (@1, signed_max) >> && TYPE_UNSIGNED (arg1_type) >> /* We will flip the signedness of the comparison operator >> associated with the mode of @1, so the sign bit is >> specified by this mode. Check that @1 is the signed >> max associated with this sign bit. */ >> && prec == GET_MODE_PRECISION (TYPE_MODE (arg1_type)) >> /* signed_type does not work on pointer types. */ >> && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (arg1_type)) >> /* The following case also applies to X < signed_max+1 >> and X >= signed_max+1 because previous transformations. */ >> (if (cmp == LE_EXPR || cmp == GT_EXPR) >> (with { tree st = signed_type_for (arg1_type); } >> (if (cmp == LE_EXPR) >> (ge (convert:st @0) { build_zero_cst (st); }) >> (lt (convert:st @0) { build_zero_cst (st); })))))))))) >> >> + if (cmp_code == GE_EXPR) >> + cmp_code = LE_EXPR; >> + c1 = wide_int_to_tree (op_type, wi::max_value (to_type)); >> + } >> ... >> + if (op == PLUS_EXPR) >> + real_c1 = wide_int_to_tree (op_type, >> + wi::sub (c3, c2, sgn, &overflow)); >> + else >> + real_c1 = wide_int_to_tree (op_type, >> + wi::add (c3, c2, sgn, &overflow)); >> >> can you avoid the tree building here and just continue using wide-ints >> please? >> Simply do the wide_int_to_tree in the result patterns. > Hi, > I updated patch wrto your comments, also deleted two useless > variables. Bootstrap and test, is it OK?
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > bin > > 2016-12-01 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * match.pd: Add new pattern: > (cond (cmp (convert? x) c1) (op x c2) c3) -> (op (minmax x c1) c2). > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > 2016-12-01 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/fold-bopcond-1.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/fold-bopcond-2.c: New test. > >> >> Otherwise looks ok to me. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> bin >>> >>> 2016-11-17 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >>> >>> * match.pd: Add new pattern: >>> (cond (cmp (convert? x) c1) (op x c2) c3) -> (op (minmax x c1) c2). >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >>> 2016-11-17 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >>> >>> * gcc.dg/fold-bopcond-1.c: New test. >>> * gcc.dg/fold-bopcond-2.c: New test.
