On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
>>>> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
>>>
>>> Indeed - I have committed the fix.
>>>
>> Hi, I have attached an initial draft of my proposal.
>> I would be grateful to receive your feedback.
>
> Ok, I had a look at the proposal and it is mostly fine. I'd be more specific
> on the deliverables, specifically
>
> 1) genmatch - program to read meta description and generate code to
> simplify GENERIC and GIMPLE according to the pattern descriptions
> using an algorithm not linear in the number of patterns
>
> 2) add patterns matched by tree-ssa-forwprop.c (and thus patterns
> in fold-const.c it depends on) to the meta-description and perform
> the simplifications of tree-ssa-forwprop.c in terms of the simplification API
>
> You will figure out that there are possibly a lot of patterns in fold-const.c
> that forwprop depends on (I know mainly of all the comparison
> simplifications).
>
> For the Timeline I'd move e) as a sub-task of f) to June 28 - July 16,
> eventually just dividing the weeks of July 17 - August 11 to that and
> the following task.
>
> That is, the overall deliverable should be a tree-ssa-forwprop.c that is
> (mostly) implemented in terms of patterns, ready for commit to trunk
> during stage1.
>
> As for targeting GENERIC, useful testing coverage of that path will
> come from for example re-writing fold-const.c:fold_comparison using
> the GENERIC API of the pattern simplifier.
>
> The devil will be in the details (as always) ;)
>
> As Maxim said - make sure to register your proposal in-time, you
> can always improve on it later.
>
Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded it:
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/public/google/gsoc2014/prathamesh3492/5629499534213120
Would you like to suggest any further changes ?
There are a few formatting glitches, I am fixing those.
Could you help me point out how to write test-cases for transforms ?
For example:
/* Fold ~A + 1 -> -A */
(match_and_simplify
(PLUS_EXPR (BIT_NOT_EXPR @0) @1)
if (@1 == integer_one_node)
(NEGATE_EXPR @0))
Is the following test-case correctly written ?
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O -fdump-tree-forwprop" } */
int foo (int x)
{
int temp1 = ~x;
int temp2 = temp1 + 1;
return temp2;
}
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "temp* = -x*(D)" "forwprop1" } } */
Shall that be (somewhat) correct ?
(Unfortunately, I cannot check if I have written the test-case correctly,
because I am in the middle of a bootstrap build.
Is there a way to run test-cases on only stage-1 compiler ?
I tried make check-cc1 RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=tree-ssa/match-2.c but that
did not work).
forwprop output is:
;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1743, symbol_order=0)
gimple_match_and_simplified to temp2_3 = -x_1(D);
foo (int x)
{
int temp2;
int temp1;
<bb 2>:
temp1_2 = ~x_1(D);
temp2_3 = -x_1(D);
temp2_4 = temp2_3;
return temp2_4;
}
Thanks and Regards,
Prathamesh
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Prathamesh
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> This caused segfault for patterns when "simplification" operand was
>>>> only c_expr (patch attached).
>>>>
>>>> * genmatch.c (c_expr::c_expr): use OP_C_EXPR instead of OP_EXPR in
>>>> call to operand constructor.
