Thanks Richard and Marc.
I wrote the following test case to compare the outputs of fn1() and fn1NoOpt()
below with my extra pattern being applied. I tested the two functions with all
of the integers from INT_MIN to INT_MAX.
long
fn1 (int x)
{
return 42L - (long)(42 - x);
}
#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC optimize ("O0")
long
fn1NoOpt (int x)
{
volatile int y = (42 - x);
return 42L - (long)y;
}
#pragma GCC pop_options
int main ()
{
for (long i=INT_MIN; i<=INT_MAX;i++)
{
auto valNoOpt = fn1NoOpt(i);
auto valOpt = fn1(i);
if (valNoOpt != valOpt)
printf("valOpt=%ld, valNoOpt=%ld\n", valOpt, valNoOpt);
}
return 0;
}
I saw that the return values of fn1() and fn1NoOpt() differed when the input
was between INT_MIN and INT_MIN+42 inclusive. When passing values in this range
to fn1NoOpt(), a signed overflow is triggered which causes the value to differ
(undefined behavior). This seems to go in line with what Marc described and I
think the transformation is correct in the scenario above. I do think that type
casts that result in truncation (i.e. from a higher precision to a lower one)
or with unsigned types will result in an incorrect transformation so those
scenarios need to be avoided.
Given that the extra pattern I'm adding is taking advantage the undefined
behavior of signed integer overflow, I'm considering keeping the existing
nop_convert pattern in place and adding a new pattern to cover these new cases.
I'd also like to avoid touching nop_convert given that it's used in a number of
other patterns.
This is the pattern I have currently:
(simplify
(minus (convert1? @0) (convert2? (minus (convert3? @2) @1)))
(if (operand_equal_p(@0, @2, 0)
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED(type)
&& !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED(type)
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE(@1))
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED(TREE_TYPE(@1))
&& !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED(TREE_TYPE(@1))
&& !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@1))
&& !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)
&& TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@1)) <= TYPE_PRECISION (type)
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE(@0))
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED(TREE_TYPE(@0))
&& !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED(TREE_TYPE(@0))
&& !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@0))
&& TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@0)) <= TYPE_PRECISION (type)
&& TREE_TYPE(@1) == TREE_TYPE(@2))
(convert @1)))
Is there a more concise/better way of writing the pattern? I was looking for
similar checks in match.pd and I couldn't find anything that I could leverage.
I also kept my pattern to the specific scenario I'm seeing with the regression
to lower the risk of something breaking. I've limited @1 and @2 to have the
same type.
I'm also in favor of adding/running computer verification to make sure the
transformation is legal. I've written some tests to verify that the pattern is
being applied in the right scenarios and not being applied in others, but I
think there are too many possibilities to manually write them all. Is there
anything in GCC that can be used to verify that match.pd transformations are
correct? I'm thinking of something like Alive
https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2.
Thanks,
Victor
From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 12:08 AM
To: Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr>
Cc: Victor Tong <vit...@microsoft.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division
followed by multiply [PR95176]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 7:05 PM Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> Option 2: Add a new pattern to support scenarios that the existing
> >> nop_convert pattern bails out on.
> >>
> >> Existing pattern:
> >>
> >> (simplify
> >> (minus (nop_convert1? @0) (nop_convert2? (minus (nop_convert3? @@0)
> >>@1)))
> >> (view_convert @1))
>
> I tried to check with a program when
>
> T3 x;
> T1 y;
> (T2)x-(T2)((T1)x-y)
>
> can be safely replaced with
>
> (T2)y
>
> From the output, it looks like this is safe when T1 is at least as large
> as T2. It is wrong when T1 is unsigned and smaller than T2. And when T1 is
> signed and smaller than T2, it is ok if T3 is the same type as T1 (signed
> then) or has strictly less precision (any sign), and not in other cases.
>
> Note that this is when signed implies undefined overflow and unsigned
> implies wrapping, and I wouldn't put too much faith in this recently
> dusted program. And it doesn't say how to write the match.pd pattern with
> '?', "@@", disabling it if TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED, etc.
>
> Mostly, I wanted to say that if we are going to go handle more than
> nop_convert for more than just 1 or 2 easy transformations, I think some
> kind of computer verification would be useful, it would save a lot of time
> and headaches.
True. I wonder if auto-generating such tests from match.pd rules would
be a good project to work on (GSoC?). When there's define_match
involved things get a little tricky, but then one item on the TODO list
is "inlining" those at the use site (exploding the decision tree even more).
Richard.
> (I just check by brute force all possible precisions (from 1 to 6) and
> signedness for T1, T2 and T3, all possible values for x and y, compute
> the before and after formulas, accepting if there is UB before, rejecting
> if there is UB after (and not before), and manually try to see a pattern
> in the list of types that work)
>
> --
> Marc Glisse
