Thanks for reviewing, I will correct all stupid spelling problem in the next
version of patch.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:
>
>>>+ int (i * S).
>>>+ Otherwise, just return double int zero. */
>
> This is sufficient, since you are properly checking the next_interp
> chain. Another possible form would be
>
> X = (B + i) * 1,
>
> but if this is present, then one of the forms you're checking for should
> also be present, so there's no need to check the MULT_CANDs.
I'm not very sure here since I didn't check MULT_CAND in the patch. Could you
please explain more about this?
>
>>>+
>>>+static double_int
>>>+backtrace_base_for_ref (tree *pbase)
>>>+{
>>>+ tree base_in = *pbase;
>>>+ slsr_cand_t base_cand;
>>>+
>>>+ STRIP_NOPS (base_in);
>>>+ if (TREE_CODE (base_in) != SSA_NAME)
>>>+ return tree_to_double_int (integer_zero_node);
>>>+
>>>+ base_cand = base_cand_from_table (base_in);
>>>+
>>>+ while (base_cand && base_cand->kind != CAND_PHI)
>>>+ {
>>>+ if (base_cand->kind == CAND_ADD
>>>+ && base_cand->index.is_one ()
>>>+ && TREE_CODE (base_cand->stride) == INTEGER_CST)
>>>+ {
>>>+ /* X = B + (1 * S), S is integer constant. */
>>>+ *pbase = base_cand->base_expr;
>>>+ return tree_to_double_int (base_cand->stride);
>>>+ }
>>>+ else if (base_cand->kind == CAND_ADD
>>>+ && TREE_CODE (base_cand->stride) == INTEGER_CST
>>>+ && integer_onep (base_cand->stride))
>>>+ {
>>>+ /* X = B + (i * S), S is integer one. */
>>>+ *pbase = base_cand->base_expr;
>>>+ return base_cand->index;
>>>+ }
>>>+
>>>+ if (base_cand->next_interp)
>>>+ base_cand = lookup_cand (base_cand->next_interp);
>>>+ else
>>>+ base_cand = NULL;
>>>+ }
>>>+
>>>+ return tree_to_double_int (integer_zero_node);
>>>+}
>>>+
>>> /* Look for the following pattern:
>>>
>>> *PBASE: MEM_REF (T1, C1)
>>>@@ -767,8 +818,15 @@ slsr_process_phi (gimple phi, bool speed)
>>>
>>> *PBASE: T1
>>> *POFFSET: MULT_EXPR (T2, C3)
>>>- *PINDEX: C1 + (C2 * C3) + C4 */
>>>+ *PINDEX: C1 + (C2 * C3) + C4
>>>
>>>+ When T2 is recorded by an CAND_ADD in the form of (T2' + C5), It
> ^ ^
> a it
>
>>>+ will be further restructured to:
>>>+
>>>+ *PBASE: T1
>>>+ *POFFSET: MULT_EXPR (T2', C3)
>>>+ *PINDEX: C1 + (C2 * C3) + C4 + (C5 * C3) */
>>>+
>>> static bool
>>> restructure_reference (tree *pbase, tree *poffset, double_int
> *pindex,
>>> tree *ptype)
>>>@@ -777,7 +835,7 @@ restructure_reference (tree *pbase, tree *poffset,
>>> double_int index = *pindex;
>>> double_int bpu = double_int::from_uhwi (BITS_PER_UNIT);
>>> tree mult_op0, mult_op1, t1, t2, type;
>>>- double_int c1, c2, c3, c4;
>>>+ double_int c1, c2, c3, c4, c5;
>>>
>>> if (!base
>>> || !offset
>>>@@ -823,11 +881,12 @@ restructure_reference (tree *pbase, tree
> *poffset,
>>> }
>>>
>>> c4 = index.udiv (bpu, FLOOR_DIV_EXPR);
>>>+ c5 = backtrace_base_for_ref (&t2);
>>>
>>> *pbase = t1;
>>>- *poffset = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, sizetype, t2,
>>>- double_int_to_tree (sizetype, c3));
>>>- *pindex = c1 + c2 * c3 + c4;
>>>+ *poffset = size_binop (MULT_EXPR, fold_convert (sizetype, t2),
>>>+ double_int_to_tree (sizetype, c3));
>
> I am not sure why you changed this call. fold_build2 is a more
> efficient call than size_binop. size_binop makes several checks that
> will fail in this case, and then calls fold_build2_loc, right? Not a
> big deal but seems like changing it back would be better. Perhaps I'm
> missing something (as usual ;).
I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be in other
kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later.
Thanks.
bin
