From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-199966-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 40451 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2019 15:12:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 40442 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2019 15:12:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:mpt8srn, H*i:sk:mpt8srn, structural
X-HELO: foss.arm.com
Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.110.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 15:12:58 +0000
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9810628;	Tue, 20 Aug 2019 08:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.99.62])	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A70F43F246;	Tue, 20 Aug 2019 08:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,Tejas Joshi <tejasjoshi9673@gmail.com>,  gcc@gcc.gnu.org,  Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>,  hubicka@ucw.cz,  joseph@codesourcery.com, richard.sandiford@arm.com
Cc: Tejas Joshi <tejasjoshi9673@gmail.com>,  gcc@gcc.gnu.org,  Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>,  hubicka@ucw.cz,  joseph@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: Expansion of narrowing math built-ins into power instructions
References: <CACMrGjCcY_b4zDb2MprOCJa1Z3H-_1SdP+2XkCsf0ckeyY5A9w@mail.gmail.com>	<mpta7cah9xo.fsf@arm.com> <20190815184450.GO31406@gate.crashing.org>	<mpto90pfly0.fsf@arm.com>	<CACMrGjAaLkVuH-exAhoByRUCjGjTtRFDB5EyC-HiphfVWEaYCw@mail.gmail.com>	<mpt36i0fbir.fsf@arm.com> <20190819130720.GG31406@gate.crashing.org>	<mpt8sro707q.fsf@arm.com> <20190820121137.GP31406@gate.crashing.org>	<mptlfvo3sdh.fsf@arm.com> <20190820134613.GR31406@gate.crashing.org>	<mpt8srn523k.fsf@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 15:12:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <mpt8srn523k.fsf@arm.com> (Richard Sandiford's message of "Tue,	20 Aug 2019 15:43:43 +0100")
Message-ID: <mptzhk33m6h.fsf@arm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2

Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> writes:
>> And yes, it is icky.  But it is sound, as far as I can see.
>
> I really disagree that it's sound, but no point me saying why again :-)
>
> (It could certainly be made to work with sufficient hacks of course,
> like pretty much anything could, but I don't think that's the same thing.)

For an example, we have:

      /* Maybe simplify x + 0 to x.  The two expressions are equivalent
	 when x is NaN, infinite, or finite and nonzero.  They aren't
	 when x is -0 and the rounding mode is not towards -infinity,
	 since (-0) + 0 is then 0.  */
      if (!HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (mode) && trueop1 == CONST0_RTX (mode))
	return op0;

I think it's plausible that people will care about accurate rounding
but not signed zeroes.  In that mode we could have:

    (set (reg:DF r3) (plus:DF (reg:DF r1) (reg:DF r2)))
    (set (reg:DF r4) (const_double:DF 0.0))
    (set (reg:SF r5) (float_narrow:SF (plus:DF (reg:DF r3) (reg:DF r4))))

Then combine through normal structural simplification could (with the
rule above) fold all this down to:

    (set (reg:SF r5) (float_narrow:SF (plus:DF (reg:DF r1) (reg:DF r2))))

where the truncation is now fused with r1+r2 instead of r3+r4.  We would
have to have to add specific checks to avoid this happening, it wouldn't
fall out naturally from structural PoV.

Thanks,
Richard