Hello,

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:

> >>> You have a pointer how to define a target optab? I looked into optabs 
> >>> code but found no appropriate hook.  For isinf<mode> is seems is is 
> >>> enough to provide a failing expander, but other functions like isnan 
> >>> don't have an optab entry, so there is a hook mechanism to extend optabs?
> >> Just add corresponding optabs for the missing cases (some additions are 
> >> pending, like isnornal).  There’s no hook to prevent folding to FP 
> >> compares nor is that guarded by other means (like availability of native 
> >> FP ops).  Changing the guards would be another reasonable option.
> >> Richard
> > 
> > There are many other such folds, e.g. for isdigit().  The AVR libraries 
> > have all this in hand-optimized assembly, and all these built-in expansions 
> > are bypassing that.  Open-coded C will never beat that assemlbly code, at 
> > least not with the current GCC capabilities.
> 
> The idea is that isdigit() || isalpha() or similar optimize without 
> special casing the builtins.
> 
> > How would I go about disabling / bypassing non-const folds from ctype.h and 
> > the many others?
> 
> I think this mostly shows we lack late recognition of open-coded isdigit 
> and friends, at least for the targets where inlining them is not 
> profitable.
> 
> A pragmatic solution might be a new target hook, indicating a specified 
> builtin is not to be folded into an open-coded form.

Well, that's what the mechanism behind -fno-builtin-foobar is supposed to 
be IMHO.  Hopefully the newly added additional mechanism using optabs and 
ifns (instead of builtins) heeds it.

> A good solution would base this on (size) costs, the perfect solution 
> would re-discover the builtins late and undo inlining that didn’t turn 
> out to enable further simplification.
> 
> How is inlined isdigit bad on AVR?  Is a call really that cheap 
> considering possible register spilling around it?

On AVR with needing to use 8bit registers to do everything?  I'm pretty 
sure the call is cheaper, yeah :)


Ciao,
Michael.

Reply via email to