[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[jimis at gmx dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #2 from jimis <jimis at gmx dot net> 2011-08-13 01:37:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 24996
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24996
Make cse.c:preferable() more readable, slightly faster, without affecting its
logic.

2011-08-13  Dimitrios Apostolou  <jimis@gmx.net>

    * cse.c (preferable): Make it more readable and slightly faster,
    without affecting its logic.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[jimis at gmx dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

jimis <jimis at gmx dot net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jimis at gmx dot net

--- Comment #3 from jimis <jimis at gmx dot net> 2011-08-13 01:39:23 UTC ---
I think that the logic in this function is expressed in complicated manner. It
took me some time to figure out what happens in various corner cases. The
attached patch I think makes the code more readable/maintainable, hopefully it
doesn't affect the function's logic at all. Runtime measured unaffected, if not
a couple milliseconds faster. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64.

Thanks to Cristophe for pointing me here.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-06 11:41:27 UTC ---
There is no straight-forward place to handle transform of

  <bb 2>:
  if (i_2(D) != j_3(D))
    goto <bb 3>;
  else
    goto <bb 4>;

  <bb 3>:
  D.1715_4 = i_2(D) - j_3(D);

  <bb 4>:
  # D.1715_1 = PHI <D.1715_4(3), 0(2)>

to

  <bb 2>:

  <bb 3>:
  D.1715_4 = i_2(D) - j_3(D);

  <bb 4>:
  D.1715_1 = D.1715_4;

but it eventually feels like a phi-opt transform.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I will implement this match pattern since that is all that is needed now with
phiopt using match.

Something like:
(simplify
 (cond (ne @0 @1) (minus@2 @0 @1) (zerop@3))
 (@2))
Should work.

Note there might be need to be a check for HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS and maybe
HONOR_NANS missing.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gabravier at gmail dot com

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 95729 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> I will implement this match pattern since that is all that is needed now
> with phiopt using match.

Funny I came up with the same match patterns twice now.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Xor should be handled too:
```
int f_xor(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i ^ j;
  return 0;
}
``

ior and and should be handled
```
int f_or(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i | j;
  return i; // could be j not just i
}

int f_and(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i & j;
  return i; // could be j not just i
}
```

So can plus and multiply:
```
int f_add(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i + j;
  return i+i;
}
int f_mult(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i * j;
  return i*i;
}
```


Note clang handles all of these except for f_add. f_mult might be handled via
the pull `i*` out of the conditional and then you have `i!=j?j:i` which then
will be reduced to j (that is they don't pattern match f_mult). They don't have
pattern matching for f_add either and `i+i` will change to `i*2` and not pulled
out of the condition.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 55822
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55822&action=edit
Patch which I am testing

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628995.html

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d86e7f4a8aef1b864a51660825597eafe9059b1

commit r14-3606-g3d86e7f4a8aef1b864a51660825597eafe9059b1
Author: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
Date:   Wed Aug 30 21:21:01 2023 -0700

    MATCH [PR19832]: Optimize some `(a != b) ? a OP b : c`

    This patch adds the following match patterns to optimize these:
     /* (a != b) ? (a - b) : 0 -> (a - b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a ^ b) : 0 -> (a ^ b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a & b) : a -> (a & b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a | b) : a -> (a | b) */
     /* (a != b) ? min(a,b) : a -> min(a,b) */
     /* (a != b) ? max(a,b) : a -> max(a,b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a * b) : (a * a) -> (a * b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a + b) : (a + a) -> (a + b) */
     /* (a != b) ? (a + b) : (2 * a) -> (a + b) */
    Note currently only integer types (include vector types)
    are handled. Floating point types can be added later on.

    OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.

    The first pattern had still shows up in GCC in cse.c's preferable
    function which was the original motivation for this patch.

            PR tree-optimization/19832

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            * match.pd: Add pattern to optimize
            `(a != b) ? a OP b : c`.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * g++.dg/opt/vectcond-1.C: New test.
            * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-same-1.c: New test.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
   Target Milestone|---                         |14.0

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2d3211d580369b75200fbdd7b854d30460e0aba

commit r14-3623-gc2d3211d580369b75200fbdd7b854d30460e0aba
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri Sep 1 14:22:17 2023 +0200

    testsuite: Fix vectcond-1.C FAIL on i686-linux [PR19832]

    This test FAILs on i686-linux with
    .../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/vectcond-1.C:8:57: warning: MMX vector return
without MMX enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi]
    .../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/vectcond-1.C:17:12: warning: MMX vector
argument without MMX enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi]
    excess warning.  Fixed by using -Wno-psabi.

    2023-09-01  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR tree-optimization/19832
            * g++.dg/opt/vectcond-1.C: Add -Wno-psabi to dg-options.

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59ecd5ff096f800de17b804f1482055f2d84d629

commit r14-6827-g59ecd5ff096f800de17b804f1482055f2d84d629
Author: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski@quicinc.com>
Date:   Sun Dec 24 15:51:35 2023 -0800

    match: Improve `(a != b) ? (a + b) : (2 * a)` pattern [PR19832]

    In the testcase provided, we would match f_plus but not g_plus
    due to a missing `:c` on the plus operator. This fixes the oversight
    there.

    Note this was noted in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/76318 .

    Committed as obvious after bootstrap/test on x86_64-linux-gnu.

            PR tree-optimization/19832

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            * match.pd (`(a != b) ? (a + b) : (2 * a)`): Add `:c`
            on the plus operator.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-same-2.c: New test.

    Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski@quicinc.com>

[Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-08 23:34 -------
Confirmed, here is the full testcase by the way:
int f(int i, int j)
{
  if (i!=j)
    return i - j;
  return 0;
}

Note I did not say the patch is useless but I just wantted to say that it would be useful if gcc did this for 
us instead of changing the code.  Anyways this can be done with PHI-OPT, I will try to look into this 
doing this for 4.1.  Your patch should be still considered.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|c                           |tree-optimization
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-02-08 23:34:07
               date|                            |
            Summary|Missed optimisation         |don't remove an if when we
                   |                            |know the value is the same
                   |                            |as with the if (subtraction)


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832