On 10/16/14 05:52, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
Hi All,
Here is a simple enhancement for predicate computation in if-convert phase:
We use notion of cd equivalence to get simpler predicate for
join block, e.g. if join block has 2 predecessors with predicates
p1 & p2 and p1 & !p2, we'd like to get p1 for it instead of
p1 & p2 | p1 & !p2.
Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-10-16 Yuri Rumyantsev<ysrum...@gmail.com>
* tree-if-conv.c (add_to_predicate_list): Check unconditionally
that bb is always executed to early exit. Use predicate of
cd-equivalent block for join blocks if it exists.
(if_convertible_loop_p_1): Recompute POST_DOMINATOR tree.
(tree_if_conversion): Free post-dominance information.
First, for the benefit of anyone trying to understand what you're doing,
defining what "cd equivalent" means would be helpful.
if-conv.patch
Index: tree-if-conv.c
===================================================================
--- tree-if-conv.c (revision 216217)
+++ tree-if-conv.c (working copy)
@@ -396,25 +396,51 @@
}
/* Add condition NC to the predicate list of basic block BB. LOOP is
- the loop to be if-converted. */
+ the loop to be if-converted. Use predicate of cd-equivalent block
+ for join bb if it exists. */
static inline void
add_to_predicate_list (struct loop *loop, basic_block bb, tree nc)
{
tree bc, *tp;
+ basic_block dom_bb;
+ static basic_block join_bb = NULL;
if (is_true_predicate (nc))
return;
- if (!is_predicated (bb))
+ /* If dominance tells us this basic block is always executed,
+ don't record any predicates for it. */
+ if (dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, loop->latch, bb))
+ return;
So, do you have a case where the dominated_by_p test above is true and
is_predicated(bb) returns true as well? I think this part of the change
is largely responsible for the hack you're doing with having the
function scoped static variable join_bb.
+
+ /* If predicate has been already set up for given bb using cd-equivalent
+ block predicate, simply escape. */
+ if (join_bb == bb)
+ return;
I *really* dislike the state you're carrying around via join_bb.
ISTM that if you compute that there's an equivalence, then you just set
the predicate for the equivalent block and the right things would have
happened if you had not changed the test above.
You also need a testcase. It doesn't have to be extensive, but at least
some basic "smoke test" to verify basic operation of this code. It's
perfectly fine to scan the debugging dumps for debug output.
jeff
