public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110199] [12/13/14 Regression] Missing VRP transformation with MIN_EXPR and known relation Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:05:04 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-110199-4-EkA9oglqVf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-110199-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110199 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law <law@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8fe27ed193d60f6cd8b34761858a720c95eabbdb commit r14-9419-g8fe27ed193d60f6cd8b34761858a720c95eabbdb Author: jlaw <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> Date: Sun Mar 10 11:58:00 2024 -0600 [committed] [PR tree-optimization/110199] Simplify MIN/MAX more often So as I mentioned in the BZ, the case of t = MIN_EXPR (A, B) where we know something about the relationship between A and B can be trivially handled by some existing code in DOM. That existing code would simplify when A == B. But by testing GE and LE instead of EQ we can cover more cases with minimal effort. When applicable the MIN/MAX turns into a simple copy. I made one other change. We have other binary operations that we simplify when we know something about the relationship between the operands. That code was not canonicalizing the order of operands when building the expression to lookup in the hash tables to discover that relationship. Since those paths are only testing for equality, we can trivially reverse them and not have to worry about changing codes or anything like that. So extremely safe and avoids having to come back and fix that code to match the MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR case later. Bootstrapped on x86 and also tested on the crosses. I briefly thought there was an sh regression, but that was actually the recent fwprop changes twiddling code generation for one test. PR tree-optimization/110199 gcc/ * tree-ssa-scopedtables.cc (avail_exprs_stack::simplify_binary_operation): Generalize handling of MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR to allow additional simplifications. Canonicalize comparison operands for other cases. gcc/testsuite * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-27.c: New test. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-28.c: New test.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-10 18:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-06-09 22:28 [Bug tree-optimization/110199] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-09 22:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110199] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-09 22:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-12 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-08-11 23:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-12-12 21:59 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2024-03-06 16:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-06 16:47 ` amacleod at redhat dot com 2024-03-07 13:34 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-10 18:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-110199-4-EkA9oglqVf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).