[patch] Fix inconsistency in invert_tree_comparison

2011-10-23 Thread Eric Botcazou
Hi,

the comment of the function reads:

/* Given a tree comparison code, return the code that is the logical inverse
   of the given code.  It is not safe to do this for floating-point
   comparisons, except for NE_EXPR and EQ_EXPR, so we receive a machine mode
   as well: if reversing the comparison is unsafe, return ERROR_MARK.  */

but the function starts with:

  if (honor_nans  flag_trapping_math)
return ERROR_MARK;

so, for example, it refuses to fold !(x == y) to x != y for FP, which is valid.

Fixed by letting EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR go through.  This makes tree-opt/44683 
regress though, but it's clear that the original fix only papered over the 
problem, as you can't infer a simple equivalence from a condition when you can 
have signed zeros around; so the patch also includes the proper fix.

Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline?


2011-10-23  Eric Botcazou  ebotca...@adacore.com

* fold-const.c (invert_tree_comparison): Always invert EQ_EXPR/NE_EXPR.

PR tree-optimization/44683
* tree-ssa-dom.c (record_edge_info): Record simple equivalences only if
we can be sure that there are no signed zeros involved.


-- 
Eric Botcazou
Index: fold-const.c
===
--- fold-const.c	(revision 180235)
+++ fold-const.c	(working copy)
@@ -2100,15 +2100,14 @@ pedantic_non_lvalue_loc (location_t loc,
   return protected_set_expr_location_unshare (x, loc);
 }
 
-/* Given a tree comparison code, return the code that is the logical inverse
-   of the given code.  It is not safe to do this for floating-point
-   comparisons, except for NE_EXPR and EQ_EXPR, so we receive a machine mode
-   as well: if reversing the comparison is unsafe, return ERROR_MARK.  */
+/* Given a tree comparison code, return the code that is the logical inverse.
+   It is generally not safe to do this for floating-point comparisons, except
+   for EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR, so we return ERROR_MARK in this case.  */
 
 enum tree_code
 invert_tree_comparison (enum tree_code code, bool honor_nans)
 {
-  if (honor_nans  flag_trapping_math)
+  if (honor_nans  flag_trapping_math  code != EQ_EXPR  code != NE_EXPR)
 return ERROR_MARK;
 
   switch (code)
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c	(revision 180235)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c	(working copy)
@@ -1610,12 +1610,15 @@ record_edge_info (basic_block bb)
 {
   tree cond = build2 (code, boolean_type_node, op0, op1);
   tree inverted = invert_truthvalue_loc (loc, cond);
+  enum machine_mode mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (op0));
+  bool can_infer_simple_equiv
+= !(HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (mode)  real_zerop (op0));
   struct edge_info *edge_info;
 
   edge_info = allocate_edge_info (true_edge);
   record_conditions (edge_info, cond, inverted);
 
-  if (code == EQ_EXPR)
+  if (can_infer_simple_equiv  code == EQ_EXPR)
 {
   edge_info-lhs = op1;
   edge_info-rhs = op0;
@@ -1624,7 +1627,7 @@ record_edge_info (basic_block bb)
   edge_info = allocate_edge_info (false_edge);
   record_conditions (edge_info, inverted, cond);
 
-  if (TREE_CODE (inverted) == EQ_EXPR)
+  if (can_infer_simple_equiv  TREE_CODE (inverted) == EQ_EXPR)
 {
   edge_info-lhs = op1;
   edge_info-rhs = op0;
@@ -1632,17 +1635,21 @@ record_edge_info (basic_block bb)
 }
 
   else if (TREE_CODE (op0) == SSA_NAME
-(is_gimple_min_invariant (op1)
-   || TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME))
+(TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME
+   || is_gimple_min_invariant (op1)))
 {
   tree cond = build2 (code, boolean_type_node, op0, op1);
   tree inverted = invert_truthvalue_loc (loc, cond);
+  enum machine_mode mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (op1));
+  bool can_infer_simple_equiv
+= !(HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (mode)
+ (TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME || real_zerop (op1)));
   struct edge_info *edge_info;
 
   edge_info = allocate_edge_info (true_edge);
   record_conditions (edge_info, cond, inverted);
 
-  if (code == EQ_EXPR)
+  if (can_infer_simple_equiv  code == EQ_EXPR)
 {
   edge_info-lhs = op0;
   edge_info-rhs = op1;
@@ -1651,7 +1658,7 @@ record_edge_info (basic_block bb)
   edge_info = allocate_edge_info (false_edge);
   record_conditions (edge_info, inverted, cond);
 
-  if (TREE_CODE (inverted) == EQ_EXPR)
+  if (can_infer_simple_equiv  TREE_CODE (inverted) == EQ_EXPR)
 {
  

Re: [patch] Fix inconsistency in invert_tree_comparison

2011-10-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
 Hi,

 the comment of the function reads:

 /* Given a tree comparison code, return the code that is the logical inverse
   of the given code.  It is not safe to do this for floating-point
   comparisons, except for NE_EXPR and EQ_EXPR, so we receive a machine mode
   as well: if reversing the comparison is unsafe, return ERROR_MARK.  */

 but the function starts with:

  if (honor_nans  flag_trapping_math)
    return ERROR_MARK;

Do you have an idea why we test flag_trapping_math here?

 so, for example, it refuses to fold !(x == y) to x != y for FP, which is 
 valid.

 Fixed by letting EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR go through.  This makes tree-opt/44683
 regress though, but it's clear that the original fix only papered over the
 problem, as you can't infer a simple equivalence from a condition when you can
 have signed zeros around; so the patch also includes the proper fix.

 Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline?

Ok.

Thanks,
Richard.


 2011-10-23  Eric Botcazou  ebotca...@adacore.com

        * fold-const.c (invert_tree_comparison): Always invert EQ_EXPR/NE_EXPR.

        PR tree-optimization/44683
        * tree-ssa-dom.c (record_edge_info): Record simple equivalences only if
        we can be sure that there are no signed zeros involved.


 --
 Eric Botcazou



Re: [patch] Fix inconsistency in invert_tree_comparison

2011-10-23 Thread Eric Botcazou
 Do you have an idea why we test flag_trapping_math here?

Not really, the test was added with the contradictory comment:
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg01674.html

-- 
Eric Botcazou