On 02/07/2024 10:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 9:14 PM
> > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > > Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: fix wide_int_constant_multiple_p when VAL
> > > and
> > > DIV are 0. [PR114932]
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > wide_int_constant_multiple_p tries to check if for two tree expressions a
> > > and b
> > > that there is a multiplier which makes a == b * c.
> > >
> > > This code however seems to think that there's no c where a=0 and b=0 are
> > > equal
> > > which is of course wrong.
> > >
> > > This fixes it and also fixes the comment.
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu -m32, -m64 and no issues.
> > >
> > > Ok for master?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tamar
> > >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > PR tree-optimization/114932
> > > * tree-affine.cc (wide_int_constant_multiple_p): Support 0 and 0 being
> > > multiples.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-affine.cc b/gcc/tree-affine.cc
> > > index
> > > d6309c4390362b680f0aa97a41fac3281ade66fd..bfea0fe826a6affa0ace154e3ca
> > > 38c9ef632fcba 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-affine.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-affine.cc
> > > @@ -880,11 +880,10 @@ free_affine_expand_cache (hash_map<tree,
> > > name_expansion *> **cache)
> > > *cache = NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* If VAL != CST * DIV for any constant CST, returns false.
> > > - Otherwise, if *MULT_SET is true, additionally compares CST and MULT,
> > > - and if they are different, returns false. Finally, if neither of
> > > these
> > > - two cases occur, true is returned, and CST is stored to MULT and
> > > MULT_SET
> > > - is set to true. */
> > > +/* If VAL == CST * DIV for any constant CST, returns true.
> > > + and if *MULT_SET is true, additionally compares CST and MULT
> > > + and if they are different, returns false. If true is returned, CST is
> > > + stored to MULT and MULT_SET is set to true. */
> > >
> > > static bool
> > > wide_int_constant_multiple_p (const poly_widest_int &val,
> > > @@ -895,6 +894,12 @@ wide_int_constant_multiple_p (const poly_widest_int
> > > &val,
> > >
> > > if (known_eq (val, 0))
> > > {
> > > + if (maybe_eq (div, 0))
> > > + {
> > > + *mult = 1;
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Note, I also tested known_eq here, and also no regression on what I can
> > test.
> > I picked maybe_eq since that's what the lines after this one tests.
>
> I think the maybe_eq (div, 0) is because otherwise multiple_p might
> crash? I'm not sure if there's a difference between
> maybe_eq (x, 0) and known_eq (x, 0) though - how does a maybe_eq
> POLY_INT look like that's not known_eq?
Take:
A = POLY_INT_CST [16,0]
B = POLY_INT_CST [8,8]
then these represent polynomials:
A = 16
B = 8 + 8x
where x is only known at runtime. We have maybe_eq (A,B) since there is
a value of x (= 1) which makes these equal at runtime, but clearly
!known_eq (A,B) (take x = 0, for example).
That is my understanding at least, hopefully that makes sense.
Thanks,
Alex
>
> > I'm not sure I fully understand why one tests known and the other maybe.
> > It seems to me
> > that both should test known. But I tested both so which ever one is felt
> > to be more correct
> > I can commit If ok.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamar
> >
> > > if (*mult_set && maybe_ne (*mult, 0))
> > > return false;
> > > *mult_set = true;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
