* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-04-26 7:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-26 7:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-26 7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-26 07:06:53 UTC ---
Modulo is an integer only operation, so I'd say you want
(k & 1) ? -1.0 : 1.0
instead, converting (k & 1) into floating point and multiplying and subtracting
it or (k & 1) << 1 into floating point and subtracting it is is likely going to
be more expensive, though of course it should be benchmarked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-04-26 7:06 ` [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)" jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-26 7:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-28 9:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-26 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-26 07:09:54 UTC ---
As James pointed out at c.l.f, the algorithm fails if k < 0 - and suggests:
1.0 - (float) ((k & 1) << 1)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-04-26 7:06 ` [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)" jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-26 7:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-28 9:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-28 22:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-28 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-28 09:05:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Modulo is an integer only operation, so I'd say you want
> (k & 1) ? -1.0 : 1.0
> instead, converting (k & 1) into floating point and multiplying and subtracting
> it or (k & 1) << 1 into floating point and subtracting it is is likely going to
> be more expensive, though of course it should be benchmarked.
You're right, it is much faster:
g25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/P2> cat a.c
#include <stdio.h>
volatile float b;
int main()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<1000000000; i++)
b = (i & 1) ? -1.0 : 1.0;
printf("%f\n",b);
}
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/P2> gcc -O a.c && time ./a.out
-1.000000
real 0m1.948s
user 0m1.946s
sys 0m0.000s
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/P2> cat b.c
#include <stdio.h>
volatile float b;
int main()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<1000000000; i++)
b = 1.0 - ((i&1)<<1);
printf("%f\n",b);
}
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/P2> gcc -O b.c && time ./a.out
-1.000000
real 0m7.059s
user 0m7.053s
sys 0m0.001s
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-28 9:05 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-28 22:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-29 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-28 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-28 22:03:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29968
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29968
patch that fails
The patch in the attachment fails with the test
case
program main
integer :: i
real(8) :: a
a = -1.0_8
read (*,*) i
print *,(-1.0_8)**i,a**i
end program main
gfortran -O foo.f90
foo.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
foo.f90:6:0: internal compiler error: in gimplify_modify_expr, at
gimplify.c:4941
print *,(-1.0_8)**i,a**i
^
0x7fbc17 gimplify_modify_expr
../../trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:4941
0x7f0211 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_d**, gimple_statement_d**,
bool (*)(tree_node*), int)
../../trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:7156
I wonder why.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-28 22:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-29 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-02 19:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-29 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-29 08:40:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> patch that fails
The Fortran patch of the attachments looks fine, except for:
+ one = gfc_copy_expr (op1);
+ gfc_free_expr (op1);
+ gfc_free_expr (op2);
+ *e = *one;
I would simply use "op1" directly instead of copying it and then freeing the
original expression. Otherwise, I am okay with that patch (with a test case).
* * *
For the middle-end patch: Richard things that the problem is probably in the
COND_EXPR re-gimplification - which means the problem is elsewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-29 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-02 19:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-02 21:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-02 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #29968|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-02 19:56:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 30011
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30011
Patch that should work, but doesn't.
Here's the actual patch that fails, without the Fortran
front end part.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 19:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-02 21:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-02 22:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-02 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-02 21:08:36 UTC ---
The problem is the following in gimplify.c:
In gimplify_cond_expr, one has:
/* If this COND_EXPR has a value, copy the values into a temporary within
the arms. */
if (!VOID_TYPE_P (type))
...
/* If either an rvalue is ok or we do not require an lvalue, create the
temporary. But we cannot do that if the type is addressable. */
if (((fallback & fb_rvalue) || !(fallback & fb_lvalue))
&& !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type))
...
tmp = create_tmp_var (type, "iftmp");
result = tmp;
This is then used in the then_ and else_ branches, e.g.
<modify_expr 0x7ffff67f2e38
type <real_type 0x7ffff66f5e70 real(kind=4) SF
arg 0 <var_decl 0x7ffff67ea850 iftmp.1 type <real_type ... real(kind=4)>
arg 1 <real_cst 0x7ffff67f32a0 type <real_type ... real(kind=4)>
constant 1.0e+0>>
That's passed to gimplify_modify_expr, where one runs into the assert:
if (gimplify_ctxp->into_ssa && is_gimple_reg (*to_p))
{
/* We should have got an SSA name from the start. */
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (*to_p) == SSA_NAME);
}
which fails as the TREE_CODE of "iftmp.1" is VAR_DECL.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 21:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-02 22:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-03 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-02 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-02 22:00:53 UTC ---
For completeness, gimplify_ctxp->into_ssa is 0 for the -O0 optimization and it
gets set to 1 in gimple_regimplify_operands. Thus, it is not surprising that it
works with the -O0 example ("(-1.0)**k") but not with the -O1 example
("a=-1;a**k").
If one ignores the assert, one runs into: control flow within basic block 2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 22:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-03 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-17 23:08 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-03 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-03 09:58:20 UTC ---
After some discussion with Jakub and Richard - and after doing some code reads,
I think it is best do handle this in tree-ssa-math-opts.c (search for
gimple_expand_builtin_powi and BUILT_IN_POWI).
For the code insertion, asan.c's build_check_stmt can serve as template.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-03 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-17 23:08 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-30 15:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-17 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 30142
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30142&action=edit
Another patch that doesn't work...
This time with the right PR...
I tried to follow the advice in comment#9, but I hit a wall
(again).
With the attached patch, I hit
foo.f90:1:0: error: SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT is wrong
program main
^
Expected definition statement:
_16 = 1.0e+0;
Actual definition statement:
_16 = _24;
so I suspect I need PHI nodes here.
Is this the right approach in general? Am I missing something
simple here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-17 23:08 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-30 15:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-30 21:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-30 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 30228
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30228&action=edit
Yet another patch that doesn't work
This one fails with
program main
^
_24 = i_1 & 1;
power_6.f90:4:0: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0x98ca4c verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*)
../../trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c:4792
0x8c4d87 execute_function_todo
../../trunk/gcc/passes.c:1969
0x8c56e7 execute_todo
../../trunk/gcc/passes.c:2002
We have a few alternatives now:
1. This doesn't get fixed at all
2. This doesn't get fixed by me
3. This gets fixed in the Fortran front end
4. Somebody points out where my patch is going wrong, and helps me
understant a bit more of the basics of GIMPLE.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-30 15:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-30 21:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-30 21:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-30 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu May 30 21:32:53 2013
New Revision: 199461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-30 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>
PR middle-end/57073
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (execute_cse_sincos): Optimize
powi (-1.0, k) to (k & 1) ? -1.0 : 1.0.
2013-05-30 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR middle-end/57073
* gfortran.dg/power_6.f90: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/power_6.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-30 21:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-30 21:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-31 20:40 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-30 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FIXED on the trunk (for 4.9).
Thanks, Thomas and Jakub, for the help and the suggestions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-30 21:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-31 20:40 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-31 20:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-01 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-31 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Last reconfirmed| |2013-05-31
Resolution|FIXED |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg01050.html
is wrong; the optimization is only done when, for
2.0**i, i is a constant integer. power_6.f90 also
fails as a result.
Tobias, could you revert this patch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-31 20:40 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-31 20:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-01 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-31 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14)
> The patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg01050.html
> is wrong
I realized this myself about 6 hours ago, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01884.html - I was hoping to get
some feedback - otherwise, I was intending to simply revert it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/57073] __builtin_powif (-1.0, k) should be optimized to "1.0 - 2.0 * (K%2)"
[not found] <bug-57073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-31 20:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-06-01 8:41 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-01 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Now it should be FIXED again.
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jun 1 08:39:59 2013
New Revision: 199575
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-06-01 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
Partially reverted:
2013-05-31 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR middle-end/57073
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (execute_cse_sincos): Move check
further up.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread