From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-463353-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19576 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2014 11:27:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19518 invoked by uid 48); 6 Oct 2014 11:27:45 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/63464] compare one character to many: faster
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cc everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-63464-4-TV6PPOwF1j@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63464-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63464-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-10-06
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We have this optimization implemented for switches, if you compile
char*f3(char*s){
  do
    {
      switch (*s)
        {
        case ' ':
        case ',':
        case '\r':
        case '\n':
          ++s;
          continue;
        default:
          return s;
        }
    }
  while (1);
}

then it will do the bit test, see r189173 (and various follow-up fixes for
that).
Now, we can argue whether in this case it is beneficial to perform the
MINUS_EXPR or if maxval is small enough (e.g. when maxval is smaller than
BITS_PER_WORD), just assume minval is 0.

And then the question is, if we should teach reassoc range optimizations to
reuse emit_case_bit_tests, or convert such tests into a GIMPLE_SWITCH and
expand as such.

Richard/Steven, thoughts about this?