Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Qing Zhao]

Hi, Wilco,

thanks a lot for your review and comments.

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Wilco Dijkstra  wrote:
> 
> Hi Qing,
> 
> Just looking at a very high level, I have a few comments:
> 
> 1. Constant folding str(n)cmp - folding is done separately in 
> fold-const-call.c
>   and gimple-fold.c.  There is already code for folding strcmp and strncmp,
>   so we shouldn't need to add new foldings.  Or do you have an example that
>   isn't folded as expected? If so, a fix should be added to the existing code.

are you referring the following:

 B.1. (PR83026) When both arguments are constant strings and it's a strcmp:
* if the length of the strings are NOT equal, we can safely fold the call
  to a non-zero value.
* otherwise, do nothing now.


the following testing case cannot be folded by the current gimple-fold or 
fold-const-call:

int f1 (void)
{
  char *s0= "abcd";
  char s[8];
  strcpy (s, s0);
  return __builtin_strcmp(s, "abc") != 0;
}

in order to fold the above call, we need the strlen information that provided 
by the tree-ssa-strlen.c.
and I don’t think that improving the gimple-fold or fold-const-call can fold 
the above call to 1. 

with the strlen info in tree-ssa-strlen.c,  the strlen of s could be determined 
as 4, which is not equal
to the strlen of the constant string “abc”, then we can safely fold 

__builtin_strcmp(s, "abc") != 0

to 1. 

(actually, your above  comments remind me that one of my testcases added has 
some issue, I will fix the testcase,
strcmpopt_3.c). 

> 
> 2. Why check for str(n)cmp == 0 / != 0? There is no need to explicitly check
>   for equality comparisons since folding into memcmp is always good.

If the result is Not used to compare with 0, then we need the exact value of 
strcmp of two strings.  negative value, zero, or positive value.

I am not sure changing str(n)cmp to memcmp under such situation will still 
return the correct negative or positive value?

> 
> 3. Why handle strncmp? There is already code to convert strncmp into strcmp,
>   so why repeat that again in a different way? It just seems to make the
>   code significantly more complex for no benefit.

if strncmp cannot be convert to strcmp, there is still call to strncmp that we 
should handle, right? 

Qing


> 
> You can achieve the same effect by just optimizing strcmp into memcmp when
> legal without checking for equality comparison.  As a result you can 
> considerably
> reduce the size of this patch while handling more useful cases.
> 
> Wilco
> 

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Qing Zhao]

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:17:37AM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
>> 
>>  if (idx1)
>>{
>>  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
>>  var_string = arg2;
>>}
>>  else if (idx2)
>>{
>>  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
>>  var_string = arg1;
>>}
>> 
>> so, the -Wmaybe-uninitialized should NOT issue warning, right?
> 
> Well, you had the var_string var uninitialized, so that is what I was
> talking about.

oh, yeah, forgot to initialize var_string.
> 
>> but anyway, I can change the above as following:
>> 
>> HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
> 
> And here you don't need to initialize it.
> 
>>  if (idx1)
>>{
>>  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
>>  var_string = arg2;
>>}
>>  else
>>{
>>  gcc_assert (idx2);
>>  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
>>  var_string = arg1;
>>}
>> 
>> is this better?
> 
> Yes, though the gcc_assert could be just gcc_checking_assert (idx2);

what’s the major difference between these two assertion calls?

> 
>>> so that would be mode 2, though that
>>> mode isn't actually used in real-world code and thus might be not fully
>>> tested.
>> 
>> so, using this routine with mode 2 should be the right approach to go? 
>> and we need fully testing on this too?
> 
> It has been a while since I wrote it, so it would need careful analysis.
> 
B. use “get_range_strlen” in gimple-fold.h to decide the size of the 
 object.  however, 
 it cannot provide valid info for simple array, either. 
>>> 
>>> get_range_strlen returns you a range, the minval is not what you're looking
>>> for, that is the minimum string length, so might be too short for your
>>> purposes.  And maxval is an upper bound, but you are looking for lower
>>> bound, you need guarantees this amount of memory can be accessed, even if
>>> there is 0 in the first byte.
>> 
>> my understanding is that: get_range_strlen returns the minimum and maximum 
>> length of the string pointed by the 
>> pointer, and the maximum length of the string is determined by the size of 
>> the allocated memory pointed by the
>> pointer, so, it should serve my purpose,   did I misunderstand it?
> 
> What I'm worried about is:
> struct S { int a; char b[64]; };
> struct T { struct S c; char d; };
> int
> foo (struct T *x)
> {
>  return strcmp (x->c.b, "01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789") 
> == 0;
> }
> int
> bar (void)
> {
>  struct S *p = malloc (offsetof (struct S, b) + 8);
>  p->a = 123;
>  strcpy (p->b, "0123456");
>  return foo ((struct T *) p);
> }
> etc.  where if you transform that into memcmp (x->c.b, 
> "01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789", 51) == 0
> it will segfault, whereas strcmp would not.

thanks for the example.

is this issue only for the flexible array member? 
if so, the current get_range_strlen will distinguish whether this is for 
flexible array member or not, then we can disable such transformation
for flexible array member.


> 
>>> But if we find out during
>>> expansion we don't want to expand it inline, we should fall back to calling
>>> strcmp or strncmp.
>> 
>> under what situation we will NOT expand the memcpy_eq call inline?
> 
>  target = expand_builtin_memcmp (exp, target, fcode == 
> BUILT_IN_MEMCMP_EQ);
>  if (target)
>return target;
>  if (fcode == BUILT_IN_MEMCMP_EQ)
>{
>  tree newdecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMCMP);
>  TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1) = build_fold_addr_expr (newdecl);
>}
> is what builtins.c has, so it certainly counts with the possibility.
> Now, both expand_builtin_memcmp, and emit_block_cmp_hints has several cases
> when it fails.  E.g. can_do_by_pieces decides it is too expensive to do it
> inline, and emit_block_cmp_via_cmpmem fails because the target doesn't have
> cmpmemsi expander.  Various other cases.
> 
> Also, note that some target might have cmpstr*si expanders implemented, but
> not cmpmemsi, in which case trying to optimize strcmp as memcmp_eq might be a
> severe pessimization.

Okay, I see.  this is reasonable. 

if the following better:  (some details still need more work, just basic idea)

in handle_builtin_string_cmp of tree-ssa-strlen.c:

+  /* Replace strcmp or strncmp with the BUILT_IN_STRCMP_EQ.  */
+  if (var_sizei > final_length) 
+{
+  tree fn = builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_STRCMP_EQ/BUILT_IN_STRNCMP_EQ;
+  if (!fn)
+   return true;
+  tree const_string_len = build_int_cst (size_type_node, final_length); 
+  update_gimple_call (gsi, fn, 3, arg1, arg2, const_string_len);
+}

then in builtins.c, add the following:
case BUILT_IN_STRCMP_EQ:
case BUILT_IN_STRNCMP_EQ:
  target = expand_builtin_memcmp (exp, target, fcode == BUILT_IN_MEMCMP_EQ);
  if (target)
return target;
  else 
{
 tree

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:17:37AM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
>   HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
> 
>   if (idx1)
> {
>   const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
>   var_string = arg2;
> }
>   else if (idx2)
> {
>   const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
>   var_string = arg1;
> }
> 
> so, the -Wmaybe-uninitialized should NOT issue warning, right?

Well, you had the var_string var uninitialized, so that is what I was
talking about.

> but anyway, I can change the above as following:
> 
>  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;

And here you don't need to initialize it.

>   if (idx1)
> {
>   const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
>   var_string = arg2;
> }
>   else
> {
>   gcc_assert (idx2);
>   const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
>   var_string = arg1;
> }
> 
> is this better?

Yes, though the gcc_assert could be just gcc_checking_assert (idx2);

> > so that would be mode 2, though that
> > mode isn't actually used in real-world code and thus might be not fully
> > tested.
> 
> so, using this routine with mode 2 should be the right approach to go? 
> and we need fully testing on this too?

It has been a while since I wrote it, so it would need careful analysis.

> >>B. use “get_range_strlen” in gimple-fold.h to decide the size of the 
> >> object.  however, 
> >> it cannot provide valid info for simple array, either. 
> > 
> > get_range_strlen returns you a range, the minval is not what you're looking
> > for, that is the minimum string length, so might be too short for your
> > purposes.  And maxval is an upper bound, but you are looking for lower
> > bound, you need guarantees this amount of memory can be accessed, even if
> > there is 0 in the first byte.
> 
> my understanding is that: get_range_strlen returns the minimum and maximum 
> length of the string pointed by the 
> pointer, and the maximum length of the string is determined by the size of 
> the allocated memory pointed by the
> pointer, so, it should serve my purpose,   did I misunderstand it?

What I'm worried about is:
struct S { int a; char b[64]; };
struct T { struct S c; char d; };
int
foo (struct T *x)
{
  return strcmp (x->c.b, "01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789") 
== 0;
}
int
bar (void)
{
  struct S *p = malloc (offsetof (struct S, b) + 8);
  p->a = 123;
  strcpy (p->b, "0123456");
  return foo ((struct T *) p);
}
etc.  where if you transform that into memcmp (x->c.b, 
"01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789", 51) == 0
it will segfault, whereas strcmp would not.

> >  But if we find out during
> > expansion we don't want to expand it inline, we should fall back to calling
> > strcmp or strncmp.
> 
> under what situation we will NOT expand the memcpy_eq call inline?

  target = expand_builtin_memcmp (exp, target, fcode == BUILT_IN_MEMCMP_EQ);
  if (target)
return target;
  if (fcode == BUILT_IN_MEMCMP_EQ)
{
  tree newdecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMCMP);
  TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1) = build_fold_addr_expr (newdecl);
}
is what builtins.c has, so it certainly counts with the possibility.
Now, both expand_builtin_memcmp, and emit_block_cmp_hints has several cases
when it fails.  E.g. can_do_by_pieces decides it is too expensive to do it
inline, and emit_block_cmp_via_cmpmem fails because the target doesn't have
cmpmemsi expander.  Various other cases.

Also, note that some target might have cmpstr*si expanders implemented, but
not cmpmemsi, in which case trying to optimize strcmp as memcmp_eq might be a
severe pessimization.

Jakub

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Qing Zhao]

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08:03AM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> a little confused here:
>> 
>> in the current code:
>>  . the first case is:  result = strcmp() != 0
>>  . the second case is:if (strcmp() != 0)
>> 
>> so, the missing case you mentioned above is:
>> 
>>result = if (strcmp() != 0) 
>> 
>> or something else?
> 
> result = (strcmp () != 0 ? 15 : 37);
> or similar.  Though, usually COND_EXPRs are added by the tree-if-conversion
> pass, so you might need -ftree-loop-if-convert option and it probably needs
> to be within some loop which will have just a single bb after the
> if-conversion.

I see. thanks.

>> 
>>> if you just use else, you don't need to initialize const_string_leni
>>> either.
>> 
>> I think that const_string_leni still need to be initialized in this case, 
>> because when idx2 is non-zero,  
>> const_string_leni is initialized to compute_string_length (idx2). 
> 
> Sure.  But
>  type uninitialized_var;
>  if (cond1)
>uninitialized_var = foo;
>  else if (cond2)
>uninitialized_var = bar;
>  use (uninitialized_var);
> is a coding style which asks for -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings, in order
> not to warn, the compiler has to prove that cond1 || cond2 is always true,
> which might not be always easy for the compiler.

in my case, I already initialize the “uninitialized_var” when declared it:

  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;

  if (idx1)
{
  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
  var_string = arg2;
}
  else if (idx2)
{
  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
  var_string = arg1;
}

so, the -Wmaybe-uninitialized should NOT issue warning, right?

but anyway, I can change the above as following:

 HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;

  if (idx1)
{
  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
  var_string = arg2;
}
  else
{
  gcc_assert (idx2);
  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
  var_string = arg1;
}

is this better?

> 
>>> This is something that looks problematic to me.  get_range_strlen returns
>>> some conservative upper bound on the string length, which is fine if
>>> var_string points to say a TREE_STATIC variable where you know the allocated
>>> size, or automatic variable.  But if somebody passes you a pointer to a
>>> structure and the source doesn't contain aggregate copying for it, not sure
>>> if you can take for granted that all the bytes are readable after the '\0'
>>> in the string.  Hopefully at least for flexible array members and arrays in
>>> such positions get_range_strlen will not provide the upper bound, but even
>>> in other cases it doesn't feel safe to me.
>> 
>> this is the part that took me most of the time during the implementation. 
>> 
>> I have considered the following 3 approaches to decide the size of the 
>> variable array:
>> 
>>  A. use “compute_builtin_object_size” in tree-object-size.h to decide 
>> the size of the
>> object.   However, even with the simplest case, it cannot provide the 
>> information. 
> 
> compute_builtin_object_size with modes 0 or 1 computes upper bound, what you
> are really looking for is lower bound,

you mean: 0, 1 is for maximum object size, and 2 is for minimum object size?

yes, I am looking for minimum object size for this optimization. 

> so that would be mode 2, though that
> mode isn't actually used in real-world code and thus might be not fully
> tested.

so, using this routine with mode 2 should be the right approach to go? and we 
need fully testing on this too?

> 
>>  B. use “get_range_strlen” in gimple-fold.h to decide the size of the 
>> object.  however, 
>> it cannot provide valid info for simple array, either. 
> 
> get_range_strlen returns you a range, the minval is not what you're looking
> for, that is the minimum string length, so might be too short for your
> purposes.  And maxval is an upper bound, but you are looking for lower
> bound, you need guarantees this amount of memory can be accessed, even if
> there is 0 in the first byte.

my understanding is that: get_range_strlen returns the minimum and maximum 
length of the string pointed by the 
pointer, and the maximum length of the string is determined by the size of the 
allocated memory pointed by the
pointer, so, it should serve my purpose,   did I misunderstand it?

> 
>>> Furthermore, in the comments you say that you do it only for small strings,
>>> but in the patch I can't see any upper bound, so you could transform strlen
>>> that would happen to return say just 1 or 2 with a function call that
>>> possibly reads megabytes of data (memcmp may read all bytes, not just stop
>>> at the first difference).
>> 
>> do you mean for very short constant string, we should NOT change it to a. 
>> call to memcmp?  instead we should just 
>> inline it with byte comparison sequence?
> 
> I mean we should never ever replace strcmp or

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08:03AM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
> a little confused here:
> 
> in the current code:
>   . the first case is:  result = strcmp() != 0
>   . the second case is:if (strcmp() != 0)
> 
> so, the missing case you mentioned above is:
> 
> result = if (strcmp() != 0) 
> 
> or something else?

result = (strcmp () != 0 ? 15 : 37);
or similar.  Though, usually COND_EXPRs are added by the tree-if-conversion
pass, so you might need -ftree-loop-if-convert option and it probably needs
to be within some loop which will have just a single bb after the
if-conversion.
> > 
> >> +  /* When both arguments are known, and their strlens are unequal, we can 
> >> + safely fold the call to a non-zero value for strcmp;
> >> + othewise, do nothing now.  */
> >> +  if (idx1 != 0 && idx2 != 0)
> >> +{
> >> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = -1;
> >> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni2 = -1;
> >> +  const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);
> >> +  const_string_leni2 = compute_string_length (idx2);
> > 
> > Why do you initialize the vars when you immediately overwrite it?
> 
> just a habit to declare a variable with initialization :-).
> 
> > Just do
> >  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);
> 
> I can change it like this.
> > etc.
> > 
> >> +  /* When one of args is constant string.  */
> >> +  tree var_string;
> >> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
> >> +  
> >> +  if (idx1)
> >> +{
> >> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
> >> +  var_string = arg2;
> >> +} 
> >> +  else if (idx2)
> >> +{
> >> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
> >> +  var_string = arg1;
> >> +} 
> > 
> > Haven't you checked earlier that one of idx1 and idx2 is non-zero?
> 
> Yes.  
> 
> it’s guaranteed that  there is one and ONLY one of idx1 and idx2 is non-zero 
> when getting here. 
> 
> > If so, then the else if (idx2) will just might confuse -Wuninitialized,
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > if you just use else, you don't need to initialize const_string_leni
> > either.
> 
> I think that const_string_leni still need to be initialized in this case, 
> because when idx2 is non-zero,  
> const_string_leni is initialized to compute_string_length (idx2). 

Sure.  But
  type uninitialized_var;
  if (cond1)
uninitialized_var = foo;
  else if (cond2)
uninitialized_var = bar;
  use (uninitialized_var);
is a coding style which asks for -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings, in order
not to warn, the compiler has to prove that cond1 || cond2 is always true,
which might not be always easy for the compiler.

> > This is something that looks problematic to me.  get_range_strlen returns
> > some conservative upper bound on the string length, which is fine if
> > var_string points to say a TREE_STATIC variable where you know the allocated
> > size, or automatic variable.  But if somebody passes you a pointer to a
> > structure and the source doesn't contain aggregate copying for it, not sure
> > if you can take for granted that all the bytes are readable after the '\0'
> > in the string.  Hopefully at least for flexible array members and arrays in
> > such positions get_range_strlen will not provide the upper bound, but even
> > in other cases it doesn't feel safe to me.
> 
> this is the part that took me most of the time during the implementation. 
> 
> I have considered the following 3 approaches to decide the size of the 
> variable array:
> 
>   A. use “compute_builtin_object_size” in tree-object-size.h to decide 
> the size of the
> object.   However, even with the simplest case, it cannot provide the 
> information. 

compute_builtin_object_size with modes 0 or 1 computes upper bound, what you
are really looking for is lower bound, so that would be mode 2, though that
mode isn't actually used in real-world code and thus might be not fully
tested.

>   B. use “get_range_strlen” in gimple-fold.h to decide the size of the 
> object.  however, 
> it cannot provide valid info for simple array, either. 

get_range_strlen returns you a range, the minval is not what you're looking
for, that is the minimum string length, so might be too short for your
purposes.  And maxval is an upper bound, but you are looking for lower
bound, you need guarantees this amount of memory can be accessed, even if
there is 0 in the first byte.

> > Furthermore, in the comments you say that you do it only for small strings,
> > but in the patch I can't see any upper bound, so you could transform strlen
> > that would happen to return say just 1 or 2 with a function call that
> > possibly reads megabytes of data (memcmp may read all bytes, not just stop
> > at the first difference).
> 
> do you mean for very short constant string, we should NOT change it to a. 
> call to memcmp?  instead we should just 
> inline it with byte comparison sequence?

I mean we should never ever replace strcmp or strncmp call with lib

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Qing Zhao]

Hi, Jakub,

thanks a lot for your detailed review.

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 01:45:21PM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> 2017-12-11  Qing Zhao  mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>
> 
> No " " in ChangeLog entries please.

this is an error when I pasted this part from my terminal to mail editor, not 
in my real code.
will double check next time when sending out email.
> 
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
>> @@ -2541,6 +2541,198 @@ handle_builtin_memcmp (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
>>   return false;
>> }
>> 
>> +/* Given an index to the strinfo vector, compute the string length for the
>> +   corresponding string. Return -1 when unknown.  */
>> + 
>> +static HOST_WIDE_INT 
>> +compute_string_length (int idx)
>> +{
>> +  HOST_WIDE_INT string_leni = -1; 
>> +  gcc_assert (idx != 0);
>> +
>> +  if (idx < 0)
>> +string_leni = ~idx;
>> +  else
>> +{
>> +  strinfo *si = get_strinfo (idx);
>> +  if (si)
>> +{
>> +  tree const_string_len = get_string_length (si);
>> +  string_leni
>> += (const_string_len && tree_fits_uhwi_p (const_string_len)
>> +   ? tree_to_uhwi(const_string_len) : -1); 
> 
> So, you are returning a signed HWI, then clearly tree_fits_uhwi_p and
> tree_to_uhwi are inappropriate, you should have used tree_fits_shwi_p
> and tree_to_shwi.  Space after function name is missing too.
> And, as you start by initializing string_leni to -1, there is no
> point to write it this way rather than
> if (const_string_len && tree_fits_shwi_p (const_string_len))
>   string_leni = tree_to_shwi (const_string_len);

originally it returned an unsigned HWI.   but later I changed it to return a 
signed one since I
need a negative value to represent the UNKNOWN state. 

I will fix this.
> 
>> +}
>> +}
> 
> Maybe also do
>  if (string_leni < 0)
>return -1;

Yes, this might be safer.
> 
>> +  return string_leni;
> 
> unless the callers just look for negative value as unusable.
> 
>> +  tree len = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2);
>> +  if (tree_fits_uhwi_p (len))
>> +length = tree_to_uhwi (len);
> 
> Similarly to above, you are mixing signed and unsigned HWIs too much.

same reason as above :-),  I will fix this.

> 
>> +  if (gimple_code (ustmt) == GIMPLE_ASSIGN)
> 
>  if (is_gimple_assign (ustmt))
> 
> Usually we use use_stmt instead of ustmt.
Okay.
> 
>> +{
>> +  gassign *asgn = as_a  (ustmt);
> 
> No need for the gassign and ugly as_a, gimple_assign_rhs_code
> as well as gimple_assign_rhs2 can be called on gimple * too.

this part of the code I just copied from the routine “handle_builtin_memcpy” 
and no change.

I will change it as you suggested.


>> +  tree_code code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (asgn);
>> +  if ((code != EQ_EXPR && code != NE_EXPR)
>> +  || !integer_zerop (gimple_assign_rhs2 (asgn)))
>> +return true;
>> +}
>> +  else if (gimple_code (ustmt) == GIMPLE_COND)
>> +{
>> +  tree_code code = gimple_cond_code (ustmt);
>> +  if ((code != EQ_EXPR && code != NE_EXPR)
>> +  || !integer_zerop (gimple_cond_rhs (ustmt)))
>> +return true;
> 
> There is another case you are missing, assign stmt with
> gimple_assign_rhs_code COND_EXPR, where gimple_assign_rhs1 is
> tree with TREE_CODE EQ_EXPR or NE_EXPR with TREE_OPERAND (rhs1, 1)
> integer_zerop.

a little confused here:

in the current code:
. the first case is:  result = strcmp() != 0
. the second case is:if (strcmp() != 0)

so, the missing case you mentioned above is:

result = if (strcmp() != 0) 

or something else?
> 
>> +  /* When both arguments are known, and their strlens are unequal, we can 
>> + safely fold the call to a non-zero value for strcmp;
>> + othewise, do nothing now.  */
>> +  if (idx1 != 0 && idx2 != 0)
>> +{
>> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = -1;
>> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni2 = -1;
>> +  const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);
>> +  const_string_leni2 = compute_string_length (idx2);
> 
> Why do you initialize the vars when you immediately overwrite it?

just a habit to declare a variable with initialization :-).

> Just do
>  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);

I can change it like this.
> etc.
> 
>> +  /* When one of args is constant string.  */
>> +  tree var_string;
>> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
>> +  
>> +  if (idx1)
>> +{
>> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
>> +  var_string = arg2;
>> +} 
>> +  else if (idx2)
>> +{
>> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
>> +  var_string = arg1;
>> +} 
> 
> Haven't you checked earlier that one of idx1 and idx2 is non-zero?

Yes.  

it’s guaranteed that  there is one and ONLY one of idx1 and idx2 is non-zero 
when getting here. 

> If so, then the el

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Wilco Dijkstra]

Hi Qing,

Just looking at a very high level, I have a few comments:

1. Constant folding str(n)cmp - folding is done separately in fold-const-call.c
   and gimple-fold.c.  There is already code for folding strcmp and strncmp,
   so we shouldn't need to add new foldings.  Or do you have an example that
   isn't folded as expected? If so, a fix should be added to the existing code.

2. Why check for str(n)cmp == 0 / != 0? There is no need to explicitly check
   for equality comparisons since folding into memcmp is always good.

3. Why handle strncmp? There is already code to convert strncmp into strcmp,
   so why repeat that again in a different way? It just seems to make the
   code significantly more complex for no benefit.

You can achieve the same effect by just optimizing strcmp into memcmp when
legal without checking for equality comparison.  As a result you can 
considerably
reduce the size of this patch while handling more useful cases.

Wilco

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]2nd patch of PR78809 and PR83026

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 01:45:21PM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
> 2017-12-11  Qing Zhao  mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>>

No " " in ChangeLog entries please.

> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
> @@ -2541,6 +2541,198 @@ handle_builtin_memcmp (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
>return false;
>  }
>  
> +/* Given an index to the strinfo vector, compute the string length for the
> +   corresponding string. Return -1 when unknown.  */
> + 
> +static HOST_WIDE_INT 
> +compute_string_length (int idx)
> +{
> +  HOST_WIDE_INT string_leni = -1; 
> +  gcc_assert (idx != 0);
> +
> +  if (idx < 0)
> +string_leni = ~idx;
> +  else
> +{
> +  strinfo *si = get_strinfo (idx);
> +  if (si)
> + {
> +   tree const_string_len = get_string_length (si);
> +   string_leni
> + = (const_string_len && tree_fits_uhwi_p (const_string_len)
> +? tree_to_uhwi(const_string_len) : -1); 

So, you are returning a signed HWI, then clearly tree_fits_uhwi_p and
tree_to_uhwi are inappropriate, you should have used tree_fits_shwi_p
and tree_to_shwi.  Space after function name is missing too.
And, as you start by initializing string_leni to -1, there is no
point to write it this way rather than
  if (const_string_len && tree_fits_shwi_p (const_string_len))
string_leni = tree_to_shwi (const_string_len);

> + }
> +}

Maybe also do
  if (string_leni < 0)
return -1;

> +  return string_leni;

unless the callers just look for negative value as unusable.

> +  tree len = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2);
> +  if (tree_fits_uhwi_p (len))
> +length = tree_to_uhwi (len);

Similarly to above, you are mixing signed and unsigned HWIs too much.

> +  if (gimple_code (ustmt) == GIMPLE_ASSIGN)

  if (is_gimple_assign (ustmt))

Usually we use use_stmt instead of ustmt.

> + {
> +   gassign *asgn = as_a  (ustmt);

No need for the gassign and ugly as_a, gimple_assign_rhs_code
as well as gimple_assign_rhs2 can be called on gimple * too.

> +   tree_code code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (asgn);
> +   if ((code != EQ_EXPR && code != NE_EXPR)
> +   || !integer_zerop (gimple_assign_rhs2 (asgn)))
> + return true;
> + }
> +  else if (gimple_code (ustmt) == GIMPLE_COND)
> + {
> +   tree_code code = gimple_cond_code (ustmt);
> +   if ((code != EQ_EXPR && code != NE_EXPR)
> +   || !integer_zerop (gimple_cond_rhs (ustmt)))
> + return true;

There is another case you are missing, assign stmt with
gimple_assign_rhs_code COND_EXPR, where gimple_assign_rhs1 is
tree with TREE_CODE EQ_EXPR or NE_EXPR with TREE_OPERAND (rhs1, 1)
integer_zerop.

> +  /* When both arguments are known, and their strlens are unequal, we can 
> + safely fold the call to a non-zero value for strcmp;
> + othewise, do nothing now.  */
> +  if (idx1 != 0 && idx2 != 0)
> +{
> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = -1;
> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni2 = -1;
> +  const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);
> +  const_string_leni2 = compute_string_length (idx2);

Why do you initialize the vars when you immediately overwrite it?
Just do
  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni1 = compute_string_length (idx1);
etc.

> +  /* When one of args is constant string.  */
> +  tree var_string;
> +  HOST_WIDE_INT const_string_leni = -1;
> +  
> +  if (idx1)
> +{
> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx1);
> +  var_string = arg2;
> +} 
> +  else if (idx2)
> +{
> +  const_string_leni = compute_string_length (idx2);
> +  var_string = arg1;
> +} 

Haven't you checked earlier that one of idx1 and idx2 is non-zero?
If so, then the else if (idx2) will just might confuse -Wuninitialized,
if you just use else, you don't need to initialize const_string_leni
either.

> +  /* Try to get the min and max string length for var_string, the max length 
> is
> + the size of the array - 1, recorded in size[1].  */ 
> +  get_range_strlen (var_string, size);
> +  if (size[1] && tree_fits_uhwi_p (size[1]))
> +var_sizei = tree_to_uhwi (size[1]) + 1;

This is something that looks problematic to me.  get_range_strlen returns
some conservative upper bound on the string length, which is fine if
var_string points to say a TREE_STATIC variable where you know the allocated
size, or automatic variable.  But if somebody passes you a pointer to a
structure and the source doesn't contain aggregate copying for it, not sure
if you can take for granted that all the bytes are readable after the '\0'
in the string.  Hopefully at least for flexible array members and arrays in
such positions get_range_strlen will not provide the upper bound, but even
in other cases it doesn't feel safe to me.

Furthermore, in the comments you say that you do it only for small strings,
but in the patch I can't see any upper bound, so you could transform strlen
that would happen to return