public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] VR-VALUES: Rewrite test_for_singularity using range_op_handler
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 00:12:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1nUkccbyQv=-_J_c1g4EWo_fg+gii46EdmuvcS0tC6jdg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23a3e21c-eae5-44d0-8e66-65ada10a9c4d@gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:06 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/1/23 11:30, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
> > improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
> > That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
> > and Value_Range.
> >
> > This patch implements that and
> >
> > OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * vr-values.cc (test_for_singularity): Add edge argument
> >       and rewrite using range_op_handler.
> >       (simplify_compare_using_range_pairs): Use Value_Range
> >       instead of value_range and update test_for_singularity call.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp124.c: New test.
> >       * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp125.c: New test.
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/vr-values.cc b/gcc/vr-values.cc
> > index 52ab4fe6109..2474e57ee90 100644
> > --- a/gcc/vr-values.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/vr-values.cc
> > @@ -904,69 +904,33 @@ simplify_using_ranges::simplify_bit_ops_using_ranges
> >   }
> >
> >   /* We are comparing trees OP1 and OP2 using COND_CODE.  OP1 has
> > -   a known value range VR.
> > +   a known value range OP1_RANGE.
> >
> >      If there is one and only one value which will satisfy the
> > -   conditional, then return that value.  Else return NULL.
> > -
> > -   If signed overflow must be undefined for the value to satisfy
> > -   the conditional, then set *STRICT_OVERFLOW_P to true.  */
> > +   conditional on the EDGE, then return that value.
> > +   Else return NULL.  */
> >
> >   static tree
> >   test_for_singularity (enum tree_code cond_code, tree op1,
> > -                   tree op2, const value_range *vr)
> > +                   tree op2, const int_range_max &op1_range, bool edge)
> >   {
> > -  tree min = NULL;
> > -  tree max = NULL;
> > -
> > -  /* Extract minimum/maximum values which satisfy the conditional as it was
> > -     written.  */
> > -  if (cond_code == LE_EXPR || cond_code == LT_EXPR)
> > +  /* This is already a singularity.  */
> > +  if (cond_code == NE_EXPR || cond_code == EQ_EXPR)
> > +    return NULL;
> I don't think this is necessarily the right thing to do for NE.
>
> Consider if op1 has the range [0,1] and op2 has the value 1.  If the
> code is NE, then we should be able to return a singularity of 0 since
> that's the only value for x where x ne 1 is true given the range for x.

The "false" edge singularity is already known when NE is supplied. I
don't think changing it to the "true" edge singularity will be helpful
all of the time; preferring the value of 0 is a different story.
But that is a different patch and for a different location rather than
inside VRP; it should be in either isel or expand (more likely isel).

Thanks,
Andrew

>
>
>
> I like what you're trying to do, it just needs a bit of refinement I think.
>
> jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-05  7:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-01 17:30 [PATCH 1/2] VR-VALUES: Rename op0/op1 to op1/op2 for test_for_singularity Andrew Pinski
2023-09-01 17:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] VR-VALUES: Rewrite test_for_singularity using range_op_handler Andrew Pinski
2023-09-05  6:06   ` Jeff Law
2023-09-05  7:12     ` Andrew Pinski [this message]
2023-09-29 20:17       ` Jeff Law
2023-09-05  5:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] VR-VALUES: Rename op0/op1 to op1/op2 for test_for_singularity Jeff Law
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-08-11  9:15 [PATCH 1/2] PHI-OPT [PR 110984]: Add support for NE_EXPR/EQ_EXPR with casts to spaceship_replacement Andrew Pinski
2023-08-11  9:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] VR-VALUES: Rewrite test_for_singularity using range_op_handler Andrew Pinski
2023-08-11  9:51   ` Richard Biener
2023-08-11 14:00     ` Jeff Law
2023-08-11 15:07     ` Andrew MacLeod
2023-08-21 21:00       ` Andrew Pinski
2023-09-01  6:40       ` Andrew Pinski
2023-09-07 14:02         ` Andrew MacLeod

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='CA+=Sn1nUkccbyQv=-_J_c1g4EWo_fg+gii46EdmuvcS0tC6jdg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=pinskia@gmail.com \
    --cc=apinski@marvell.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
    /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).