[Bug tree-optimization/52631] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] VN does not use simplified expression for lookup

["pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-21 00:14:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm, but then you'd pessimize the case where b_2 & 1 were available?  Thus,
> don't you need to do the lookup with the original expression anyway if the
> lookup for the simplified expression fails?  Oh, and doesn't the testcase
> show a missed canonicalization?

My patch just gets us back to where we were before tuples.
Before tuples we would do:

      else if (simplified)
        {
          if (TREE_CODE (lhs) == SSA_NAME)
        {
          VN_INFO (lhs)->has_constants = expr_has_constants (simplified);
          /* We have to unshare the expression or else
             valuizing may change the IL stream.  */
          VN_INFO (lhs)->expr = unshare_expr (simplified);
        }
          rhs = simplified;
        }

And then use rhs in the switch statement for visit_unary_op/visit_binary_op .

I don't see a missed canonicalization anywhere as we are combing (a>>31)&1 and
then calling fold on it and it returns a>>31 which is the correct thing to do. 
The main issue is we never do a lookup on a>>31 after we do the simplification,
we only do it on the b&1.  

Let me see if I can understand the question about b&1 being available, a
testcase would be something like:
unsigned f(unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned c)
{
  unsigned d = c&1;
  if(b)
    c = a>>31;
  return (c & 1) + d;
}

--- CUT ---
PRE produces (with both the patch and before):
<bb 2>:
  d_3 = c_2(D) & 1;
  if (b_4(D) != 0)
    goto <bb 3>;
  else
    goto <bb 5>;

<bb 5>:
  goto <bb 4>;

<bb 3>:
  c_6 = a_5(D) >> 31;
  pretmp.3_11 = c_6 & 1;

<bb 4>:
  # c_1 = PHI <c_2(D)(5), c_6(3)>
  # prephitmp.4_12 = PHI <d_3(5), pretmp.3_11(3)>
  D.1713_7 = prephitmp.4_12;
  D.1712_8 = D.1713_7 + d_3;
  return D.1712_8;

Which means we don't even do the simplifications while doing a PRE anyways.