From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Subject: Re: match.pd: Optimize (x & y) ^ (x | y)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150611165457.GC2756@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1506111815310.8389@stedding.saclay.inria.fr>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 06:21:11PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> >>>+ (if (single_use (@2) && single_use (@3))
> >>>+ (bit_xor @0 @1)))
> >>
> >>I don't think we should use single_use here. The result is never more
> >>complicated than the original. Sure, it might increase register pressure a
> >>bit in some cases, but we have not used that as a criterion for other
> >>simplifications in match.pd yet (LLVM does though).
> >
> >I don't have a strong preference here but we surely use single_use
> >in match.pd elsewhere.
>
> The criterion for single_use up to now has been whether we may end up with
> more operations after the transformation than before. Take:
> (x & ~m) | (y & m) -> ((x ^ y) & m) ^ x
>
> If (x & ~m) and (y & m) have other uses, we are going to compute them
> anyway, and the original is essentially a single bit_ior operation. After
> the transformation, we have 2 more operations. That's worse than we started
> with, so we don't do it.
Hmm, yeah. And it was me who added that pattern ;).
So I'm going to apply the following as obvious to remove the single_uses in
my latest pattern, if testing passes. Thanks,
2015-06-11 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
* match.pd ((x & y) ^ (x | y)): Don't check for single_use.
diff --git gcc/match.pd gcc/match.pd
index 9a1317e..1ab2b1c 100644
--- gcc/match.pd
+++ gcc/match.pd
@@ -322,9 +322,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
/* (x & y) ^ (x | y) -> x ^ y */
(simplify
- (bit_xor:c (bit_and@2 @0 @1) (bit_ior@3 @0 @1))
- (if (single_use (@2) && single_use (@3))
- (bit_xor @0 @1)))
+ (bit_xor:c (bit_and @0 @1) (bit_ior @0 @1))
+ (bit_xor @0 @1))
(simplify
(abs (negate @0))
Marek
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-11 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-11 11:08 Marek Polacek
2015-06-11 11:09 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-11 12:14 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-11 11:18 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-11 12:07 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-11 20:12 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-12 5:59 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-12 7:22 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-12 9:04 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-13 10:46 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-16 13:47 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-11 15:26 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-11 16:12 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-11 16:14 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-11 16:34 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-11 16:58 ` Marek Polacek [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150611165457.GC2756@redhat.com \
--to=polacek@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=marc.glisse@inria.fr \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).