On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >>> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Richard Biener >>> No, not changing tree.def but its use as you did in your first proposed >>> patch. >> I have got it done except for capturing optional converts. >> for instance (negate (convert1@0 @1)) does not work. >> This is because of insertion in decision tree (insert::operand).
That's because you lower it to (negate @0@1) right? a capture with ->what being a capture itself? That's reasonable btw. >> Since captures were always predicate or expressions, >> ie, the corresponding dt-node->type was dt_node::DT_OPERAND, >> i could hard-code for a search on dt_node::DT_OPERAND. >> This changes when capture itself can be captured (dt_node::DT_TRUE/DT_MATCH), >> and there's no easy way right now to obtain corresponding >> dt-node from a given operand node. >> >> Should we keep a mapping (hash_map/std::map) from operand * to dt_node * ? >> That will also get rid of dt_node::parent (but we need to then >> introduce parent in AST). >> >> Other cases where convert1, convert2 are not captured work >> fine. >> (bit_not (convert1 @0) (convert2 @1)) >> I have attached patch for reference (don't intend to get it committed). > > I have fixed it in a hackish way in the current patch, so capturing > optional convert works.. > Since we don't know type corresponding to capture in decision tree > :DT_TRUE/DT_MATCH (unless > we get hold of dt-node corresponding to the capture), I tried both the > possibilities. That looks reasonable to me though I manage to hit the assert with (simplify (plus (convert1@1 (plus@2 INTEGER_CST_P INTEGER_CST_P)) @3) (if (useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (@1), TREE_TYPE (@2)))) @2) when ->what is an expression. I'd also like the various compares against CONVERT1/2 to be not done as string compares but using enum tree_code CONVERT1 equality checks. I have fixed that (but not the above insertion issue) and committed the patch. Note that I'd still like the syntax to include a question mark, thus convert?, convert1? or convert2? should be conditional converts. Requires a parser hack though. Thanks, Richard. > * genmatch.c (enum tree_code): Add new values CONVERT1, CONVERT2. > (lower_opt_convert): New function. > (lower_opt_convert): New function overloaded. > (lower_opt_convert): Likewise. > (lower_opt_convert): Likewise. > (remove_opt_convert): New function. > (has_opt_convert): Likewise. > (decision_tree::insert_operand): Adjust for capturing a capture. > (parse_for): Reject CONVERT1, CONVERT2. > (main): call add_operator. > call lower_opt_convert. > > Thanks, > Prathamesh >> >> Thanks, >> Prathamesh >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Prathamesh >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * genmatch.c (enum tree_code): New value OPT_CONVERT. >>>>>> (e_operation): New member unsigned group_index. >>>>>> (e_operation::e_operation): Add new default argument. >>>>>> Adjust to changes in >>>>>> e_operation. >>>>>> (remove_opt_convert): New function. >>>>>> (has_opt_convert): Likewise. >>>>>> (lower_opt_convert): Likewise. >>>>>> (lower_opt_convert): New overloaded function. >>>>>> (lower_opt_convert): Likewise. >>>>>> (parse_expr): Adjust to parse opt_convert. >>>>>> (parse_for): Reject opt_convert in opers. >>>>>> (main): Call lower_opt_convert. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Prathamesh. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Richard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Richard. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Extending for in this way avoids treating conversions specially >>>>>>>>>>>>> (I don't see an easy way to do very good at that automagically). >>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>> need multiple patterns in the decision tree here anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now guess sth fancy in place of '*' ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lisp style would be less free-form like >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (for cvt (convert ()) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> where we could use an empty list for the "empty" operator. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is nested for support already implemented? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)))) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prathamesh
