From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 8138B385482A; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:43:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8138B385482A
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/98028] [8/9/10/11 Regression]
 __builtin_sub_overflow_p not folded to const when some constraints are known
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:43:45 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98028-4-xwUf84XcpP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:43:45 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98028

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
I would expect in gcc 12 we'll be handling it differently than that.

I have equivalences/relations up and running and will eventually get to
applying those to general statements... which I haven't gotten to yet.

the gimple_fold() routine uses fold_range () via range-ops to calculate a
result. I plan to additionally check if there is a relation between the
operands, and if so, invoke another range_ops routine to see if that relati=
on
makes any further adjustments.

in this case, we'd have VARYING - VARYING, so ranges would resolve as expec=
ted
to VARYING.

A query if there is a relation between j_1 and i_2
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D BB 4 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
j_1(D)  unsigned int VARYING
i_2(D)  unsigned int VARYING
Equivalence set : [j_1(D), i_2(D)]
    <bb 4> :
    _3 =3D i_2(D) - j_1(D);
    return _3;
shows they are in an equivalence set, so that would be trivial to fold to 0=
 for
MINUS_EXPR.

as well, if we see other relations
 if (j > i) __builtin_unreachable();
  return i - j;

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D BB 4 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
j_1(D)  unsigned int VARYING
i_2(D)  unsigned int VARYING
Relational : (j_1(D) <=3D i_2(D))
    <bb 4> :
    _3 =3D i_2(D) - j_1(D);
    return _3;

it would likewise be pretty straightforward to add the restriction that _3 =
will
be [0, +INF]  (or [1, +INF] if it were j_1 < i_2)
If the relation is !=3D, we could also provide ~[0,0]

I'd expect the routine for MINUS_EXPR to simply switch on the possible
relations and intersect the current result with this reduced possible outco=
me.

I hope to get most of this in early in stage 1 and we can begin
enhancing/finding opportunities.
.=