From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jeffreyalaw@gmail.com,
richard.sandiford@arm.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org,
dje.gcc@gmail.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, bergner@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] Optimize '(X - N * M) / N' to 'X / N - M' if valid
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 17:44:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7nilahzh8g.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e61178a2-0209-31d6-ba85-63186b70a379@redhat.com> (Andrew MacLeod's message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2023 13:24:06 -0400")
Hi,
Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> writes:
> On 7/17/23 09:45, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>>>> Should we decide we would like it in general, it wouldnt be hard to add to
>>>> irange. wi_fold() cuurently returns null, it could easily return a bool
>>>> indicating if an overflow happened, and wi_fold_in_parts and fold_range would
>>>> simply OR the results all together of the compoent wi_fold() calls. It would
>>>> require updating/audfiting a number of range-op entries and adding an
>>>> overflowed_p() query to irange.
>>> Ah, yeah - the folding APIs would be a good fit I guess. I was
>>> also looking to have the "new" helpers to be somewhat consistent
>>> with the ranger API.
>>>
>>> So if we had a fold_range overload with either an output argument
>>> or a flag that makes it return false on possible overflow that
>>> would work I guess? Since we have a virtual class setup we
>>> might be able to provide a default failing method and implement
>>> workers for plus and mult (as needed for this patch) as the need
>>> arises?
>> Thanks for your comments!
>> Here is a concern. The patterns in match.pd may be supported by
>> 'vrp' passes. At that time, the range info would be computed (via
>> the value-range machinery) and cached for each SSA_NAME. In the
>> patterns, when range_of_expr is called for a capture, the range
>> info is retrieved from the cache, and no need to fold_range again.
>> This means the overflow info may also need to be cached together
>> with other range info. There may be additional memory and time
>> cost.
>>
>
> I've been thinking about this a little bit, and how to make the info available in a useful way.
>
> I wonder if maybe we just add another entry point to range-ops that looks a bit like fold_range ..
>
> Attached is an (untested) patch which ads overflow_free_p(op1, op2,
> relation) to rangeops. It defaults to returning false. If you want
> to implement it for say plus, you'd add to operator_plus in
> range-ops.cc something like
>
> operator_plus::overflow_free_p (irange&op1, irange& op2, relation_kind)
> {
> // stuff you do in plus_without_overflow
> }
>
> I added relation_kind as param, but you can ignore it. maybe it wont
> ever help, but it seems like if we know there is a relation between
> op1 and op2 we might be able to someday determine something else?
> if not, remove it.
>
> Then all you need to do too access it is to go thru range-op_handler.. so for instance:
>
> range_op_handler (PLUS_EXPR).overflow_free_p (op1, op2)
>
> It'll work for all types an all tree codes. the dispatch machinery
> will return false unless both op1 and op2 are integral ranges, and
> then it will invoke the appropriate handler, defaulting to returning
> FALSE.
Very good suggestions! Thanks so much for your great guide!
>
> I also am not a fan of the get_range routine. It would be better to
> generally just call range_of_expr, get the results, then handle
> undefined in the new overflow_free_p() routine and return false.
> varying should not need anything special since it will trigger the
> overflow when you do the calculation.
The general code in the trunk is just like you said: range_of_expr is
used when querying a range for an expr.
I am also aware that: a range with varying([min, max]) may be ok if the
range is computed from other ranges, especially if there is no overflow.
For example, '[MAX-100, MAX] - [0, 100]' generates a varying range, but
it would be ok for some case.
And a varying range will trigger overflow if it takes part in a
calculation as your said.
So, I agree that varying would not be specially for some patterns.
>
> The auxillary routines could go in vr-values.h/cc. They seem like
> things that simplify_using_ranges could utilize, and when we get to
> integrating simplify_using_ranges better, what you are doing may end
> up there anyway
Thanks for your suggestion! Or maybe we could just use the APIs
in match.pd directly.
>
> Does that work?
I believe this would work!
I will submit a new version patch! Thanks again for your comments!
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu Guo)
>
> Andrew
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-18 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-11 9:04 Jiufu Guo
2023-07-14 11:27 ` Aldy Hernandez
2023-07-14 13:37 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-14 14:12 ` Aldy Hernandez
2023-07-14 21:00 ` Andrew MacLeod
2023-07-17 6:27 ` Jiufu Guo
2023-07-17 9:24 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-17 13:45 ` Jiufu Guo
2023-07-17 17:24 ` Andrew MacLeod
2023-07-18 9:44 ` Jiufu Guo [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=7nilahzh8g.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com \
--to=guojiufu@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aldyh@redhat.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=linkw@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/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).