[patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Kai Tietz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

Hello,

well the bonus points might gain somebody else ... But this adds a
missing optimization
for tree level implemented in fold-const.

ChangeLog gcc/

2011-04-20  Kai Tietz

	* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Add handling for
	(X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) and (X && !Y) | (!X && Y) optimization
	to (X ^ Y).

ChangeLog gcc/testsuite

2011-04-20  Kai Tietz

	* gcc.dg/binio-xor1.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/binio-xor2.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/binio-xor3.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/binio-xor4.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/binio-xor5.c: New test.

Tested for i686-w64-mingw32, x86_64-w64-mingw32, and
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (multilib). Ok for apply?

Regards,
Kai

[-- Attachment #2: opt_xor.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5939 bytes --]

Index: gcc/gcc/fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:10:39.478091900 +0200
+++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.901039400 +0200
@@ -10660,6 +10660,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
 	  && reorder_operands_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))
 	return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
 
+      /* (X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) is X ^ Y */
+      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
+	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
+        {
+	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
+
+	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
+	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
+
+	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
+	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
+	  
+	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
+	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
+	  
+	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
+	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
+	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
+		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
+	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
+	}
+
       t1 = distribute_bit_expr (loc, code, type, arg0, arg1);
       if (t1 != NULL_TREE)
 	return t1;
@@ -12039,6 +12061,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
 	  && operand_equal_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0), 0))
 	return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, integer_one_node, arg0);
 
+      /* (X && !Y) || (!X && Y) is X ^ Y */
+      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
+	  && (TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR
+	      || TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR))
+        {
+	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
+
+	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
+	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
+
+	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
+	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
+	  
+	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
+	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
+	  
+	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
+	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
+	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
+		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
+	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
+	}
       goto truth_andor;
 
     case TRUTH_XOR_EXPR:
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.905039900 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a && !b && c) || (!a && b && c));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 5 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor2.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor2.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.908540300 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b) | (~a & b));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.911040600 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b)
+{
+  return ((a && !b) || (!a && b));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor4.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor4.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.913541000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b) | (~a & b)) & c;
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor5.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor5.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.916541300 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b & c) | (~a & b & c));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\&" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Richard Henderson]

On 04/20/2011 08:22 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
> +	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
> +        {
> +	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
> +
> +	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
> +	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
> +
> +	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
> +	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
> +	  
> +	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
> +	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
> +	  
> +	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
> +	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
> +	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
> +		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
> +	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);

First, you typoed BIT_XOR_EXPR in this first block.

Second, I don't see how you're arbitrarily choosing L0 and N1 in the
expansion.  If you write the expression the other way around,

  (~x & y) | (x & ~y)

don't you wind up with

  (~x ^ ~y)

?  Or do the extra NOT expressions get folded away anyway?

> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
> +	  && (TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR
> +	      || TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR))

I don't believe you want to apply this transformation with ANDIF.


r~

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
> --- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:10:39.478091900 +0200
> +++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.901039400 +0200
> @@ -10660,6 +10660,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
>  	  && reorder_operands_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))
>  	return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>  
> +      /* (X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) is X ^ Y */
> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
> +	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
> +        {
> +	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
> +
> +	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
> +	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
> +
> +	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
> +	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
> +	  
> +	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
> +	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
> +	  
> +	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
> +	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
> +	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
> +		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
> +	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
> +	}
> +

I must say I don't like first folding/building new trees, then testing
and then maybe optimizing, that is slow and creates unnecessary garbage
in the likely case the optimization can't do anything.

Wouldn't something like:
    int arg0_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
    int arg1_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
    if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
	&& TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
	&& operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not), 0),
			    TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not), 0)
	&& operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not), 0),
			    TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not), 0))
      return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type,
			      fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
						TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not)),
			      fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
						TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not)));
work better?

	Jakub

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Kai Tietz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1853 bytes --]

2011/4/20 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>:
> On 04/20/2011 08:22 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
>> +       && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
>> +        {
>> +       tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
>> +
>> +       a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>> +       a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
>> +
>> +       l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
>> +       l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
>> +
>> +       n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
>> +       n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
>> +
>> +       if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
>> +            && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
>> +           || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
>> +               && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
>> +         return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
>
> First, you typoed BIT_XOR_EXPR in this first block.

Duh, corrected.

> Second, I don't see how you're arbitrarily choosing L0 and N1 in the
> expansion.  If you write the expression the other way around,
>
>  (~x & y) | (x & ~y)
>
> don't you wind up with
>
>  (~x ^ ~y)
>
> ?  Or do the extra NOT expressions get folded away anyway?

Not I didn't wind up here. First ~X ^ ~Y is in result the same as X ^
Y, and for this I used here the explicit folding. Well, it might be a
bit slower, but it has the advantage to compare equal transformations
in doubt.

>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
>> +       && (TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR
>> +           || TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR))
>
> I don't believe you want to apply this transformation with ANDIF.

Yes, it is superflous. I removed it.

>
> r~
>

Adjusted patch attached.

Kai

[-- Attachment #2: opt_xor.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5887 bytes --]

Index: gcc/gcc/fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:10:39.478091900 +0200
+++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c	2011-04-20 17:41:23.427677200 +0200
@@ -10660,6 +10660,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
 	  && reorder_operands_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))
 	return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
 
+      /* (X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) is X ^ Y */
+      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
+	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
+        {
+	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
+
+	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
+	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
+
+	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
+	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
+	  
+	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
+	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
+	  
+	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
+	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
+	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
+		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
+	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, BIT_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
+	}
+
       t1 = distribute_bit_expr (loc, code, type, arg0, arg1);
       if (t1 != NULL_TREE)
 	return t1;
@@ -12039,6 +12061,27 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
 	  && operand_equal_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0), 0))
 	return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, integer_one_node, arg0);
 
+      /* (X && !Y) || (!X && Y) is X ^ Y */
+      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
+	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR)
+        {
+	  tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
+
+	  a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
+	  a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
+
+	  l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
+	  l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
+	  
+	  n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
+	  n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
+	  
+	  if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
+	       && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
+	      || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
+		  && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
+	    return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
+	}
       goto truth_andor;
 
     case TRUTH_XOR_EXPR:
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.905039900 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a && !b && c) || (!a && b && c));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 5 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor2.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor2.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.908540300 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b) | (~a & b));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.911040600 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b)
+{
+  return ((a && !b) || (!a && b));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor4.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor4.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.913541000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b) | (~a & b)) & c;
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor5.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/binop-xor5.c	2011-04-20 17:11:22.916541300 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  return ((a & ~b & c) | (~a & b & c));
+}
+
+/* We expect to see "<bb N>"; confirm that, so that we know to count
+   it in the real test.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "<bb\[^>\]*>" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\&" 1 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Richard Henderson]

On 04/20/2011 08:50 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
> +	  && TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR)

Ok with these both explicitly testing TRUTH_AND_EXPR now.


r~

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Kai Tietz]

2011/4/20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> --- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c 2011-04-20 17:10:39.478091900 +0200
>> +++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c      2011-04-20 17:11:22.901039400 +0200
>> @@ -10660,6 +10660,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
>>         && reorder_operands_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))
>>       return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>>
>> +      /* (X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) is X ^ Y */
>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
>> +       && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
>> +        {
>> +       tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
>> +
>> +       a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>> +       a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
>> +
>> +       l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
>> +       l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
>> +
>> +       n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
>> +       n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
>> +
>> +       if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
>> +            && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
>> +           || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
>> +               && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
>> +         return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
>> +     }
>> +
>
> I must say I don't like first folding/building new trees, then testing
> and then maybe optimizing, that is slow and creates unnecessary garbage
> in the likely case the optimization can't do anything.
>
> Wouldn't something like:
>    int arg0_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
>    int arg1_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
>    if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
>        && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
>        && operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not), 0),
>                            TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not), 0)
>        && operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not), 0),
>                            TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not), 0))
>      return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type,
>                              fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
>                                                TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not)),
>                              fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
>                                                TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not)));
> work better?
>
>        Jakub
>

Well, as special case we could use that, but we have here also to
handle integer-values, so I used fold to make sure I get inverse. Also
there might be some transformations, which otherwise might be not
caught, like !(X || Y) == !X && !Y ...

Regards,
Kai


-- 
|  (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Kai Tietz]

2011/4/20 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>:
> On 04/20/2011 08:50 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
>> +       && TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR)
>
> Ok with these both explicitly testing TRUTH_AND_EXPR now.
>
>
> r~
>

Committed at revision 172776 with explicit testing for TRUTH_AND_EXPR.

Kai

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Kai Tietz]

2011/4/20 Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>:
> 2011/4/20 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>:
>> On 04/20/2011 08:50 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
>>> +       && TREE_CODE (arg1) == TRUTH_AND_EXPR)
>>
>> Ok with these both explicitly testing TRUTH_AND_EXPR now.
>>
>>
>> r~
>>
>
> Committed at revision 172776 with explicit testing for TRUTH_AND_EXPR.
>
> Kai

Fixed encoding issue of backslashs in testcases at revision 172781.
Committed as obvious.

Kai

Re: [patch middle-end]: Missed optimization for (x & ~y) | (~x & y)

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2011/4/20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> --- gcc.orig/gcc/fold-const.c 2011-04-20 17:10:39.478091900 +0200
>>> +++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c      2011-04-20 17:11:22.901039400 +0200
>>> @@ -10660,6 +10660,28 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
>>>         && reorder_operands_p (arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))
>>>       return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, arg0, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>>>
>>> +      /* (X & ~Y) | (~X & Y) is X ^ Y */
>>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == BIT_AND_EXPR
>>> +       && TREE_CODE (arg1) == BIT_AND_EXPR)
>>> +        {
>>> +       tree a0, a1, l0, l1, n0, n1;
>>> +
>>> +       a0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0));
>>> +       a1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1));
>>> +
>>> +       l0 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 0));
>>> +       l1 = fold_convert_loc (loc, type, TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1));
>>> +
>>> +       n0 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l0);
>>> +       n1 = fold_build1_loc (loc, BIT_NOT_EXPR, type, l1);
>>> +
>>> +       if ((operand_equal_p (n0, a0, 0)
>>> +            && operand_equal_p (n1, a1, 0))
>>> +           || (operand_equal_p (n0, a1, 0)
>>> +               && operand_equal_p (n1, a0, 0)))
>>> +         return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type, l0, n1);
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>
>> I must say I don't like first folding/building new trees, then testing
>> and then maybe optimizing, that is slow and creates unnecessary garbage
>> in the likely case the optimization can't do anything.
>>
>> Wouldn't something like:
>>    int arg0_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
>>    int arg1_not = TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR;
>>    if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
>>        && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not)) == BIT_NOT_EXPR
>>        && operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, arg0_not), 0),
>>                            TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not), 0)
>>        && operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, arg1_not), 0),
>>                            TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not), 0))
>>      return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_XOR_EXPR, type,
>>                              fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
>>                                                TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1 - arg0_not)),
>>                              fold_convert_loc (loc, type,
>>                                                TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 1 - arg1_not)));
>> work better?
>>
>>        Jakub
>>
>
> Well, as special case we could use that, but we have here also to
> handle integer-values, so I used fold to make sure I get inverse. Also
> there might be some transformations, which otherwise might be not
> caught, like !(X || Y) == !X && !Y ...

Btw, I agree with Jakub.  Fold is suppose to not create any garbage
if a folding does not apply.  So I don't like your patch either.

Richard.

> Regards,
> Kai
>
>
> --
> |  (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
> | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
> | (")_(") him gain world domination
>