On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2014-03-04 14:14 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> >> 2014-03-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> >> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hmm, this all reminds me about the approach Andrew Pinski and I came
> >> >> up with two years ago.
> >> >
> >> > You are talking about the gimple folding interface? Yes, but it's
> >> > more similar to what I proposed before that.
> >>
> >> Well, this interface was for rtl, gimple, and tree AFAIR.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> So I doubt that we want to keep fold-const patterns similar to gimple
> >> >> (forward-prop) ones.
> >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to move fold-const patterns completely
> >> >> into gimple, and having a facility in FE to ask gimple to *pre*-fold a
> >> >> given tree to see if a constant-expression can be achieved?
> >> >
> >> > That was proposed by somebody, yes. The FE would hand off an
> >> > expression to 1) the gimplifier to gimplify it, then 2) to the
> >> > gimple folder to simplify it. Not sure if that's a good design
> >> > but yes, it mimics the awkward thing we do now (genericize for
> >> > folding in fold_stmt), just the other way around - and it makes
> >> > it very costly.
> >>
> >> Right, if we would redo step one, and two each time we visit same
> >> statement again, then of course we would produce pretty high load.
> >> By hashing this *pre*-computed gimple-expression I think the load of
> >> such an approach would lower pretty much. Of course it is true that
> >> we move gimplification-costs to FE. Nevertheless the avarage costs
> >> should be in general the same as we have them now.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Having a single meta-description of simplifications makes it
> >> > possible to have the best of both worlds (no need to GENERICIZE
> >> > back from GIMPLE and no need to GIMPLIFY from GENERIC) with
> >> > a single point of maintainance.
> >>
> >> True. I am fully agreeing to the positive effects of a single
> >> meta-description for this area. For sure it is worth to avoid the
> >> re-doing of the same folding for GENERIC/GIMPLE again and again.
> >>
> >> > [the possibility to use offline verification tools for the
> >> > transforms comes to my mind as well]
> >> This is actually a pretty interesting idea. As it would allow us to
> >> do testing for this area without side-effects by high-level passes,
> >> target-properties, etc
> >>
> >> > If you think the .md style pattern definitions are too limiting
> >> > can you think of sth more powerful without removing the possibility
> >> > of implementing the matching with a state machine to make it O(1)?
> >>
> >> Well, I am not opposed to the use of .md style pattern defintions at
> >> all. I see just some weaknesses on the current tree-folding
> >> mechanism.
> >> AST folder tries to fold into statementes by recursion into. This
> >> causes pretty high load in different areas. Like stack-growth,
> >> unnecessary repetition of operations on inner-statements, and complex
> >> patterns for expression associative/distributive/commutative rules for
> >> current operation-code.
> >
> > Actually it doesn't recurse - it avoids recursion by requiring
> > each sub-pattern to be already folded.
>
> Right, in general that is true. Sorry I expressed myself wrong. I
> mean things like fold_truth_andor.
That still may happen - "folded" results are still re-matched
and simplified, and I think we want to retain that property
(though as it's auto-generated putting in a recursion limit is easy).
> >> I am thinking about a model where we use just for the
> >> base-fold-operations the .md-style pattern definitions. On top of this
> >> model we set a layer implementing associative/commutative/distributive
> >> properties for statements in an optimize form.
> >
> > Sure, that would be a pass using the match-and-simplify infrastructure.
> > In fact the infrastructure alone only provides enough to do the
> > bare folding.
>
> Well, I am not sure if it is the best approach to have
> commutative/associative/distributive only within a pass. Sure
> forward-propagation-pass would be a candidate for this. nevertheless
> should we fold generated conditions (and other generated
> code-patterns) at time of generation including handling those laws?
Yes, sure. The API now provides 'gimple_build' similar to
how we now use fold_buildN. Thus,
tree expr = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, integer_type_node, op1,
op2),
op3);
expr = force_gimple_operand (expr, &seq, true, NULL_TREE);
becomes
tree expr = gimple_build (&seq, EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
gimple_build (&seq, PLUS_EXPR,
integer_type_node, op1, op2),
op3);
thus it will both simplify and create a gimple sequence rather
than a GENERIC tree that you need to gimplify.
Richard.
