On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:08 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:32 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:42 PM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -599,6 +592,30 @@ path_range_query::compute_imports (bitmap
> > > > > imports, const vec<basic_block> &path)
> > > > > worklist.safe_push (arg);
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > + else if (gassign *ass = dyn_cast <gassign *> (def_stmt))
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + tree ssa[3];
> > > > > + if (range_op_handler (ass))
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + ssa[0] = gimple_range_ssa_p (gimple_range_operand1
> > > > > (ass));
> > > > > + ssa[1] = gimple_range_ssa_p (gimple_range_operand2
> > > > > (ass));
> > > > > + ssa[2] = NULL_TREE;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + else if (gimple_assign_rhs_code (ass) == COND_EXPR)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + ssa[0] = gimple_range_ssa_p (gimple_assign_rhs1 (ass));
> > > > > + ssa[1] = gimple_range_ssa_p (gimple_assign_rhs2 (ass));
> > > > > + ssa[2] = gimple_range_ssa_p (gimple_assign_rhs3 (ass));
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + else
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > + for (unsigned j = 0; j < 3; ++j)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + tree rhs = ssa[j];
> > > > > + if (rhs && add_to_imports (rhs, imports))
> > > > > + worklist.safe_push (rhs);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > We seem to have 3 copies of this copy now: this one, the
> > > > threadbackward one, and the original one.
> > > >
> > > > Could we abstract this somehow?
> > >
> > > I've thought about this but didn't find any good solution since the
> > > use of the operands is always a bit different. But I was wondering
> > > why/if the COND_EXPR special-casing is necessary, that is, why
> > > don't we have a range_op_handler for it and if we don't why
> > > do we care about it?
> >
> > I think it's because we don't have a range-op handler for COND_EXPR,
> > opting to handle the relational operators instead in range-ops. We
> > have similar code in the folder:
> >
> > if (range_op_handler (s))
> > res = range_of_range_op (r, s, src);
> > else if (is_a<gphi *>(s))
> > res = range_of_phi (r, as_a<gphi *> (s), src);
> > else if (is_a<gcall *>(s))
> > res = range_of_call (r, as_a<gcall *> (s), src);
> > else if (is_a<gassign *> (s) && gimple_assign_rhs_code (s) == COND_EXPR)
> > res = range_of_cond_expr (r, as_a<gassign *> (s), src);
> >
> > Andrew, do you have any suggestions here?
>
> Hmmm, so thinking about this, perhaps special casing it is the way to go ??
It looks like so. Though a range_op_handler could, for
_1 = _2 ? _3 : _4; derive a range for _3 from _1 if _2 is
known true?
