On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I am having issues writing patterns >>> involving casts. I am trying to write patterns from simplify_rotate. >>> >>> Could you show me how to write a patterns that involve >>> casts ? >>> for eg: >>> ((T) ((T2) X << CNT1)) + ((T) ((T2) X >> CNT2)) iff CNT1 + CNT2 == B >>> T -> some unsigned type with bitsize B, and some type T2 wider than T. >>> How to express this in the pattern ? >> >> [copying gcc@ because of the syntax stuff] >> >> for example with (leaving captures as the appear in the pattern above) >> >> (match_and_simplify >> (plus (convert@2 (lshift (convert@0 X) CNT1)) >> (convert (rshift (convert@1 X) CNT2))) >> /* Types T2 have to match */ >> (if (types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (@0), TREE_TYPE (@1)) >> /* Type T should be unsigned. */ >> && TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@2)) >> /* T2 should be wider than T. */ >> && TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@0)) > TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@2)) >> /* CNT1 + CNT2 == B */ >> && wi::eq_p (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@2)), >> wi::add (CNT1, CNT2)))) >> (lrotate CNT1)) >> >> which suggests that we may want to add some type capturing / matching >> so we can maybe write >> >> (plus (convert@T (lshift (convert@T2 X) CNT1)) >> (convert (rshift (convert@T2 X) CNT2))) >> (if (/* T2s will be matched automagically */ >> && TYPE_UNSIGNED (@T) >> && TYPE_PRECISION (@T2) > TYPE_PRECISION (@T) >> && wi::eq_p (TYPE_PRECISION (@T), wi::add (CNT1, CNT2)))) >> > Thanks. >> which is less to type and supports requiring matching types. Maybe >> require @T[0-9]+ here thus use @T0 and disallow plain @T. We could >> then also use @T for the implicitely "captured" outermost type we >> refer to as plain 'type' right now. > What if we need to capture "value" as well as "type" ? > for instance match type with another capture, and value with a > different capture ? > > sth like: (bogus pattern): > (match_and_simplify > (plus (minus@T@2 @0 @1) (mult@T @2 @3)) > transform) oops, @T was meant for outermost expression. sth like: (plus (minus@T0@2 @0 @1) (mult@T0 @2 @3)) however this doesn't look good.
> >> I suggest to go ahead without a new syntax for now and see if it >> gets unwieldingly ugly without first. >> >>> For this week, I have planned: >>> a) writing patterns from simplify_rotate >>> b) replacing op in c_expr >>> c) writing more test-cases. >>> >>> If there's anything else you would like me to do, I would be happy >>> to know. >> >> Just keep an eye open for things like above - easy ways to reduce >> typing for patterns. >> >> Btw, I suggest to split up match.pd by code you converted from. Thus >> for simplify_rotate add >> >> match-simplify-rotate.pd >> >> with the patterns and do a #include "match-simplify-rotate.pd" >> in match.pd. That will make it easier to match the two later. > Okay, should I correspondingly split bitwise patterns in > match-simplify-bitwise.pd and the rest ? > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Prathamesh
