* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-25 21:28 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2017-06-27 8:49 ` Richard Biener
2017-06-27 14:52 ` Tamar Christina
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2017-06-27 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>>> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>>> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>>>
>>> There is already a 1.0 of the right type in the input, it would be easier to
>>> reuse it in the output than build a new one.
>>
>> Right. Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up missing
>>> the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). We seem to
>>> have a corresponding internal function, but apparently it is not used until
>>> expansion (well, maybe during vectorization).
>>
>> Yes I noticed that while working on a different patch related to
>> copysign; The generic version of a*copysign(1.0, b) [see the other
>> thread where the ARM folks started a patch for it; yes it was by pure
>> accident that I was working on this and really did not notice that
>> thread until yesterday].
>> I was looking into a nice way of creating copysign without having to
>> do the switch but I could not find one. In the end I copied was done
>> already in a different location in match.pd; this is also the reason
>> why I had the build_one_cst there.
>>
>>>
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_minus_onep real_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, X) into abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep @0))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (abs @0)))
>>>
>>> I would have expected it do to the right thing for signed zero and qNaN. Can
>>> you describe a case where it would give the wrong result, or are the
>>> conditions just conservative?
>>
>> I was just being conservative; maybe too conservative but I was a bit
>> worried I could get it incorrect.
>>
>>>
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, -X) into -abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep (negate @0)))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (negate (abs @0))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform copysign (-1.0, X) into copysign (1.0, X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (COPYSIGN real_minus_onep @0)
>>> + (COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } @0))
>>>
>>> (simplify
>>> (COPYSIGN REAL_CST@0 @1)
>>> (if (REAL_VALUE_NEGATIVE (TREE_REAL_CST (@0)))
>>> (COPYSIGN (negate @0) @1)))
>>> ? Or does that create trouble with sNaN and only the 1.0 case is worth
>>> the trouble?
>>
>> No that is the correct way; I Noticed the other thread about copysign
>> had something similar as what should be done too.
>>
>> I will send out a new patch after testing soon.
>
> New patch.
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Ok.
We can see if the discussion around using internal functions can end up
improving things here later. We've several cases in match.pd dealing
with generating of {,f,l} variants.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> ChangeLog:
> * match.pd (X >/>=/</<= 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0): New patterns.
> (X * copysign (1.0, X)): New pattern.
> (X * copysign (1.0, -X)): New pattern.
> (copysign (-1.0, CST)): New pattern.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-2.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c: New testcase.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marc Glisse
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-25 21:28 ` Andrew Pinski
2017-06-27 8:49 ` Richard Biener
@ 2017-06-27 14:52 ` Tamar Christina
2017-06-27 14:57 ` Richard Biener
2017-06-28 8:50 ` Christophe Lyon
2017-06-29 18:49 ` H.J. Lu
3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tamar Christina @ 2017-06-27 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski, GCC Patches; +Cc: nd
> >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
> >> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
> >> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
> >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
> >> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
> >> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
> >> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
> >> +(simplify
> >> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
> >> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
> >> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
> >> + (switch
> >> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
> >> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
> >> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
> >>
Hi,
Out of curiosity is there any reason why this transformation can't be more general?
e.g. Transform (X > 0.0 ? CST : -CST) into copysign(CST, X).
we would at the very least avoid a csel or a branch then.
Regards,
Tamar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-27 14:52 ` Tamar Christina
@ 2017-06-27 14:57 ` Richard Biener
2017-06-27 17:52 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2017-06-27 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches, Tamar Christina, Andrew Pinski, GCC Patches; +Cc: nd
On June 27, 2017 4:52:28 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
>> >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>> >> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>> >> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>> >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>> >> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>> >> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>> >> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>> >> +(simplify
>> >> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>> >> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>> >> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>> >> + (switch
>> >> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>> >> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>> >> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>> >>
>
>Hi,
>
>Out of curiosity is there any reason why this transformation can't be
>more general?
>
>e.g. Transform (X > 0.0 ? CST : -CST) into copysign(CST, X).
That's also possible, yes.
>we would at the very least avoid a csel or a branch then.
>
>Regards,
>Tamar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-27 14:57 ` Richard Biener
@ 2017-06-27 17:52 ` Andrew Pinski
2017-06-28 7:37 ` Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2017-06-27 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: Tamar Christina, GCC Patches, nd
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On June 27, 2017 4:52:28 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
>>> >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>>> >> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>>> >> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>>> >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> >> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> >> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> >> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> >> +(simplify
>>> >> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>>> >> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> >> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> >> + (switch
>>> >> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> >> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> >> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>>> >>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Out of curiosity is there any reason why this transformation can't be
>>more general?
>>
>>e.g. Transform (X > 0.0 ? CST : -CST) into copysign(CST, X).
>
> That's also possible, yes.
I will be implementing that latter today.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>>we would at the very least avoid a csel or a branch then.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tamar
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-27 17:52 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2017-06-28 7:37 ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-28 7:57 ` Uros Bizjak
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2017-06-28 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski, Uros Bizjak
Cc: Richard Biener, Tamar Christina, GCC Patches, nd
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:52:47AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On June 27, 2017 4:52:28 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
> >>> >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
> >>> >> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
> >>> >> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
> >>> >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
> >>> >> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
> >>> >> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
> >>> >> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
> >>> >> +(simplify
> >>> >> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
> >>> >> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
> >>> >> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
> >>> >> + (switch
> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
The patch regressed the gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c testcase.
From the description in the testcase it was testing the combiner, so I've
transformed it into something that also tests the combiner the same way,
ok for trunk? That said, for copysign if we match it we don't emit a fcmov
while it might be a good idea.
2017-06-28 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
* gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c (sgn): Renamed to ...
(foo): ... this. Change constants such that it isn't matched
as __builtin_copysign, yet tests the combiner the same.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c.jj 2016-05-22 12:20:23.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c 2017-06-28 09:20:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
(set (reg:DF) (float_extend:DF (mem:SF (symbol_ref...)))). */
double
-sgn (double __x)
+foo (double __x)
{
- return __x >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0;
+ return __x >= 1.0 ? 0.0 : -1.0;
}
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-28 7:37 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2017-06-28 7:57 ` Uros Bizjak
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Uros Bizjak @ 2017-06-28 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Andrew Pinski, Richard Biener, Tamar Christina, GCC Patches, nd
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:52:47AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On June 27, 2017 4:52:28 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>> >>> >> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>> >>> >> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>> >>> >> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>> >>> >> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>> >>> >> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>> >>> >> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>> >>> >> +(simplify
>> >>> >> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>> >>> >> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>> >>> >> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>> >>> >> + (switch
>> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>> >>> >> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>> >>> >> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>
> The patch regressed the gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c testcase.
> From the description in the testcase it was testing the combiner, so I've
> transformed it into something that also tests the combiner the same way,
> ok for trunk? That said, for copysign if we match it we don't emit a fcmov
> while it might be a good idea.
>
> 2017-06-28 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>
> * gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c (sgn): Renamed to ...
> (foo): ... this. Change constants such that it isn't matched
> as __builtin_copysign, yet tests the combiner the same.
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c.jj 2016-05-22 12:20:23.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cmov7.c 2017-06-28 09:20:24.000000000 +0200
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
> (set (reg:DF) (float_extend:DF (mem:SF (symbol_ref...)))). */
>
> double
> -sgn (double __x)
> +foo (double __x)
> {
> - return __x >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0;
> + return __x >= 1.0 ? 0.0 : -1.0;
> }
>
>
> Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-25 21:28 ` Andrew Pinski
2017-06-27 8:49 ` Richard Biener
2017-06-27 14:52 ` Tamar Christina
@ 2017-06-28 8:50 ` Christophe Lyon
2017-06-28 9:29 ` Richard Biener
2017-06-29 18:49 ` H.J. Lu
3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Christophe Lyon @ 2017-06-28 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: GCC Patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5180 bytes --]
On 25 June 2017 at 23:28, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>>> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>>> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>>>
>>> There is already a 1.0 of the right type in the input, it would be easier to
>>> reuse it in the output than build a new one.
>>
>> Right. Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up missing
>>> the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). We seem to
>>> have a corresponding internal function, but apparently it is not used until
>>> expansion (well, maybe during vectorization).
>>
>> Yes I noticed that while working on a different patch related to
>> copysign; The generic version of a*copysign(1.0, b) [see the other
>> thread where the ARM folks started a patch for it; yes it was by pure
>> accident that I was working on this and really did not notice that
>> thread until yesterday].
>> I was looking into a nice way of creating copysign without having to
>> do the switch but I could not find one. In the end I copied was done
>> already in a different location in match.pd; this is also the reason
>> why I had the build_one_cst there.
>>
>>>
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_minus_onep real_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, X) into abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep @0))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (abs @0)))
>>>
>>> I would have expected it do to the right thing for signed zero and qNaN. Can
>>> you describe a case where it would give the wrong result, or are the
>>> conditions just conservative?
>>
>> I was just being conservative; maybe too conservative but I was a bit
>> worried I could get it incorrect.
>>
>>>
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, -X) into -abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep (negate @0)))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (negate (abs @0))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform copysign (-1.0, X) into copysign (1.0, X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (COPYSIGN real_minus_onep @0)
>>> + (COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } @0))
>>>
>>> (simplify
>>> (COPYSIGN REAL_CST@0 @1)
>>> (if (REAL_VALUE_NEGATIVE (TREE_REAL_CST (@0)))
>>> (COPYSIGN (negate @0) @1)))
>>> ? Or does that create trouble with sNaN and only the 1.0 case is worth
>>> the trouble?
>>
>> No that is the correct way; I Noticed the other thread about copysign
>> had something similar as what should be done too.
>>
>> I will send out a new patch after testing soon.
>
> New patch.
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>
Hi Andrew,
2 of the new testcases fail on aarch64*-elf:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "copysign" 8
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "ABS" 8
The attached patch makes them unsupported by requiring c99_runtime
effective-target.
OK?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> ChangeLog:
> * match.pd (X >/>=/</<= 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0): New patterns.
> (X * copysign (1.0, X)): New pattern.
> (X * copysign (1.0, -X)): New pattern.
> (copysign (-1.0, CST)): New pattern.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-2.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c: New testcase.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marc Glisse
[-- Attachment #2: match-testcases.chlog.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 200 bytes --]
2017-06-28 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c: Add c99_runtime effective target
and options.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c: Likewise.
[-- Attachment #3: match-testcases.patch.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c
index 9ebdf50..de3e7b2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-gimple" } */
/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-gimple" } */
+/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
float f(float x)
{
return (x > 0.f ? -1.f : 1.f);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c
index b6a1a79..d74ba2f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-gimple" } */
/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-gimple" } */
+/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
+
float f(float x)
{
return x * (x > 0.f ? -1.f : 1.f);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-28 8:50 ` Christophe Lyon
@ 2017-06-28 9:29 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2017-06-28 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christophe Lyon; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, GCC Patches
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 25 June 2017 at 23:28, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>>>> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>>>> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>>> + (simplify
>>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>>> + (switch
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>>>>
>>>> There is already a 1.0 of the right type in the input, it would be easier to
>>>> reuse it in the output than build a new one.
>>>
>>> Right. Fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up missing
>>>> the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). We seem to
>>>> have a corresponding internal function, but apparently it is not used until
>>>> expansion (well, maybe during vectorization).
>>>
>>> Yes I noticed that while working on a different patch related to
>>> copysign; The generic version of a*copysign(1.0, b) [see the other
>>> thread where the ARM folks started a patch for it; yes it was by pure
>>> accident that I was working on this and really did not notice that
>>> thread until yesterday].
>>> I was looking into a nice way of creating copysign without having to
>>> do the switch but I could not find one. In the end I copied was done
>>> already in a different location in match.pd; this is also the reason
>>> why I had the build_one_cst there.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>>> + (simplify
>>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_minus_onep real_onep)
>>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>>> + (switch
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))))))
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, X) into abs(X). */
>>>> +(simplify
>>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep @0))
>>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>>> + (abs @0)))
>>>>
>>>> I would have expected it do to the right thing for signed zero and qNaN. Can
>>>> you describe a case where it would give the wrong result, or are the
>>>> conditions just conservative?
>>>
>>> I was just being conservative; maybe too conservative but I was a bit
>>> worried I could get it incorrect.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, -X) into -abs(X). */
>>>> +(simplify
>>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep (negate @0)))
>>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>>> + (negate (abs @0))))
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Transform copysign (-1.0, X) into copysign (1.0, X). */
>>>> +(simplify
>>>> + (COPYSIGN real_minus_onep @0)
>>>> + (COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } @0))
>>>>
>>>> (simplify
>>>> (COPYSIGN REAL_CST@0 @1)
>>>> (if (REAL_VALUE_NEGATIVE (TREE_REAL_CST (@0)))
>>>> (COPYSIGN (negate @0) @1)))
>>>> ? Or does that create trouble with sNaN and only the 1.0 case is worth
>>>> the trouble?
>>>
>>> No that is the correct way; I Noticed the other thread about copysign
>>> had something similar as what should be done too.
>>>
>>> I will send out a new patch after testing soon.
>>
>> New patch.
>> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> 2 of the new testcases fail on aarch64*-elf:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "copysign" 8
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "ABS" 8
>
> The attached patch makes them unsupported by requiring c99_runtime
> effective-target.
>
> OK?
Ok.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Pinski
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> * match.pd (X >/>=/</<= 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0): New patterns.
>> (X * copysign (1.0, X)): New pattern.
>> (X * copysign (1.0, -X)): New pattern.
>> (copysign (-1.0, CST)): New pattern.
>>
>> testsuite/ChangeLog:
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c: New testcase.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-2.c: New testcase.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c: New testcase.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marc Glisse
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fold (a > 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign (1.0, a) and a * copysign (1.0, a) into abs(a)
2017-06-25 21:28 ` Andrew Pinski
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-06-28 8:50 ` Christophe Lyon
@ 2017-06-29 18:49 ` H.J. Lu
3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2017-06-29 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>> +(for cmp (gt ge lt le)
>>> + outp (convert convert negate negate)
>>> + outn (negate negate convert convert)
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1, X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_onep real_minus_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outp @0))))))
>>>
>>> There is already a 1.0 of the right type in the input, it would be easier to
>>> reuse it in the output than build a new one.
>>
>> Right. Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> Non-generic builtins like copysign are such a pain... We also end up missing
>>> the 128-bit case that way (pre-existing problem, not your patch). We seem to
>>> have a corresponding internal function, but apparently it is not used until
>>> expansion (well, maybe during vectorization).
>>
>> Yes I noticed that while working on a different patch related to
>> copysign; The generic version of a*copysign(1.0, b) [see the other
>> thread where the ARM folks started a patch for it; yes it was by pure
>> accident that I was working on this and really did not notice that
>> thread until yesterday].
>> I was looking into a nice way of creating copysign without having to
>> do the switch but I could not find one. In the end I copied was done
>> already in a different location in match.pd; this is also the reason
>> why I had the build_one_cst there.
>>
>>>
>>> + /* Transform (X > 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X >= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,-X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X < 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + /* Transform (X <= 0.0 ? -1.0 : 1.0) into copysign(1,X). */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (cond (cmp @0 real_zerop) real_minus_onep real_onep)
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type)
>>> + && types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>>> + (switch
>>> + (if (types_match (type, float_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNF { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))
>>> + (if (types_match (type, long_double_type_node))
>>> + (BUILT_IN_COPYSIGNL { build_one_cst (type); } (outn @0)))))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, X) into abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep @0))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (abs @0)))
>>>
>>> I would have expected it do to the right thing for signed zero and qNaN. Can
>>> you describe a case where it would give the wrong result, or are the
>>> conditions just conservative?
>>
>> I was just being conservative; maybe too conservative but I was a bit
>> worried I could get it incorrect.
>>
>>>
>>> +/* Transform X * copysign (1.0, -X) into -abs(X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (mult:c @0 (COPYSIGN real_onep (negate @0)))
>>> + (if (!HONOR_NANS (type) && !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (type))
>>> + (negate (abs @0))))
>>> +
>>> +/* Transform copysign (-1.0, X) into copysign (1.0, X). */
>>> +(simplify
>>> + (COPYSIGN real_minus_onep @0)
>>> + (COPYSIGN { build_one_cst (type); } @0))
>>>
>>> (simplify
>>> (COPYSIGN REAL_CST@0 @1)
>>> (if (REAL_VALUE_NEGATIVE (TREE_REAL_CST (@0)))
>>> (COPYSIGN (negate @0) @1)))
>>> ? Or does that create trouble with sNaN and only the 1.0 case is worth
>>> the trouble?
>>
>> No that is the correct way; I Noticed the other thread about copysign
>> had something similar as what should be done too.
>>
>> I will send out a new patch after testing soon.
>
> New patch.
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> ChangeLog:
> * match.pd (X >/>=/</<= 0 ? 1.0 : -1.0): New patterns.
> (X * copysign (1.0, X)): New pattern.
> (X * copysign (1.0, -X)): New pattern.
> (copysign (-1.0, CST)): New pattern.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-1.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/copy-sign-2.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/mult-abs-2.c: New testcase.
>
This caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81255
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread