On 12/2/21 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
On 12/2/21 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:45 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
On 12/1/21 19:21, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 12/1/21 09:48, Martin Liška wrote:
On 12/1/21 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:25 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
On 12/1/21 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
which is compute the range of 'lhs' on edge_true into predicate->true_range,
assign that same range to ->false_range and then invert it to get the
range on the false_edge. What I am saying is that for better precision
you should do
ranger->range_on_edge (predicate->false_range, edge_false, lhs);
rather than prematurely optimize this to the inversion of the true range
since yes, ranger is CFG sensitive and only the_last_ predicate on a
long CFG path is actually inverted.
What am I missing?
I might be misunderstood, but I think it's the problem defined here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584605.html
where I used the ranger->range_on_edge on the false_edge.
Ah, OK. But then even the true_edge range is possibly wrong, no?
You are of course correct, I've just proved that in debugger ://
Consider
for (;;)
{
if (a < 100)
if (a > 50) // unswitch on this
/* .. */
if (a < 120)
/* ... */
}
then you record [51, 99] for true_range of the a > 50 predicate and thus
simplification will simplify the if (a < 120) check, no?
Yep.
You can only record the range from the (CFG independent) a > 50 check,
thus [51, +INF] but of course at simplification time you can also use
the CFG context at each simplification location.
@Andrew: How can I easily get irange based just on a stmt? Something like
fold_range
with int_range_max as the 3rd argument?
Sorry, I miss these things if I'm not directly CC'd a lot :-)
So you just want to know the basic range the stmt generates without context?
Sure, what you say would be fine, but your want to initialize it to the type
range:
Yes, I want to know range of LHS in a gcond statement and the same for cases in
a gswitch statement.
int_range_max range (TREE_TYPE (name));
you can also simply trigger it using the current SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO global
values query instead of the default current contextual one... which , if there
isnt a global range, will automatically use the range of the type of the
argument.. so maybe just try
fold_range (r, stmt, get_global_range_query ())
Doing
predicate->true_range = int_range_max (TREE_TYPE (lhs));
fold_range (predicate->true_range, stmt, get_global_range_query ());
predicate->true_range.debug();
gives me _Bool VARYING.
Likely because that gives a range for the bool result rather than
a range for the LHS of a LHS op RHS on the true or false edge.
Yes :) I guess Andrew can help us.
some grepping and poking found be gimple_range_calc_op1 which should
eventually do the trick (for constant gimple_cond_rhs at least).
Wait, didn't the gori()->outgoing_edge_range_p() call do this for you?
Its a more general API that invokes gimple_range_calc_op1() under the
covers.
Im going to add myself to the cc so I don't miss any more of these :-)
Or am I just way behind in my non-addressed reading? and that did
address your issue? :-)
Andrew
