> Am 23.07.2023 um 01:27 schrieb Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>: > > This adds a special case of the `(a&~b) | b` pattern where > `b` and `~b` are comparisons. > > OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions. Don’t we have an existing match for inversion s we could amend? > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR tree-optimization/100864 > * match.pd ((~x & y) | x -> x | y): Add comparison variant. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c: New test. > --- > gcc/match.pd | 17 +++++- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c > > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd > index bfd15d6cd4a..dd4a2df537d 100644 > --- a/gcc/match.pd > +++ b/gcc/match.pd > @@ -1928,7 +1928,22 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) > /* (~x & y) | x -> x | y */ > (simplify > (bitop:c (rbitop:c (bit_not @0) @1) @0) > - (bitop @0 @1))) > + (bitop @0 @1)) > + /* Similar but for comparisons which have been inverted already, > + Note it is hard to simulate the inverted tcc_comparison due > + NaNs; That is == and != are sometimes inversions and sometimes not. > + So a double for loop is needed and then compare the inverse code > + with the result of invert_tree_comparison is needed. > + This works fine for vector compares as -1 and 0 are bitwise > + inverses. */ > + (for cmp (tcc_comparison) > + (for icmp (tcc_comparison) > + (simplify > + (bitop:c (rbitop:c (icmp @0 @1) @2) (cmp@3 @0 @1)) > + (with { enum tree_code ic = invert_tree_comparison > + (cmp, HONOR_NANS (@0)); } > + (if (ic == icmp) > + (bitop @3 @2))))))) > > /* ((x | y) & z) | x -> (z & y) | x */ > (simplify > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..68fff4edce9 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-3.c > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/100864 */ > + > +/* { dg-do run } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O1 -fdump-tree-optimized-raw" } */ > + > +#define op_ne != > +#define op_eq == > +#define op_lt < > +#define op_le <= > +#define op_gt > > +#define op_ge >= > + > +#define operators(t) \ > +t(ne) \ > +t(eq) \ > +t(lt) \ > +t(le) \ > +t(gt) \ > +t(ge) > + > +#define cmpfunc(v, op) \ > +__attribute__((noipa)) \ > +_Bool func_##op##_##v(v int a, v int b, v _Bool e) \ > +{ \ > + v _Bool c = (a op_##op b); \ > + v _Bool d = !c; \ > + return (e & d) | c; \ > +} > + > +#define cmp_funcs(op) \ > +cmpfunc(, op) \ > +cmpfunc(volatile , op) > + > +operators(cmp_funcs) > + > +#define test(op) \ > +if (func_##op##_ (a, b, e) != func_##op##_volatile (a, b, e)) \ > + __builtin_abort(); > + > +int main() > +{ > + for(int a = -3; a <= 3; a++) > + for(int b = -3; b <= 3; b++) > + { > + _Bool e = 0; > + operators(test) > + e = 1; > + operators(test) > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > +/* Check to make sure we optimize `(a&!b) | b` -> `a | b`. */ > +/* There are 6 different comparison operators testing here. */ > +/* bit_not_expr and bit_and_expr should show up for each one (volatile). */ > +/* Each operator should show up twice > + (except for `!=` which shows up 2*6 (each tester) + 2 (the 2 loops) extra > = 16). */ > +/* bit_ior_expr will show up for each operator twice (non-volatile and > volatile). */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ne_expr," 16 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "eq_expr," 2 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "lt_expr," 2 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "le_expr," 2 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "gt_expr," 2 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ge_expr," 2 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bit_not_expr," 6 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bit_and_expr," 6 "optimized"} } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bit_ior_expr," 12 "optimized"} } */ > \ No newline at end of file > -- > 2.31.1 >
Re: [PATCH] Fix 100864: `(a&!b) | b` is not opimized to `a | b` for comparisons
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches Sun, 23 Jul 2023 01:39:08 -0700
- [PATCH] Fix 100864: `(a&!b) | b` is not... Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] Fix 100864: `(a&!b) | ... Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] Fix 100864: `(a&!b... Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] Fix 100864: `(a&am... Richard Biener via Gcc-patches