On Tue, 26 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > And no, I'm hesitant to change operand_equal_p too much. It's
> > > > very much deep-rooted into GENERIC.
> > >
> > > OK, as another option, i can bring relevant logic from operand_equal_p
> > > to ipa-icf and separate it into the compare_operand class like I did.
> > > Use it in ipa-icf-gimple now and we can slowly turn other uses of
> > > operand_equal into the compare_operand users in middle end.
> > >
> > > I agree that operand_equal is bit crazy code and it does not handle quite
> > > few
> > > things we could do at gimple. I have nothing against going this
> > > direction.
> > > (after all I do not like touching fold-const much becuase it works on
> > > generic,
> > > gimple and FE non-generic and it is not well specified what it should do)
> >
> > Yes, I've played with the idea of a GIMPLE specific operand_equal_p
> > multiple times but then the changes required to operand_equal_p were
> > small all the times. And having one piece of code that does sth is
> > always good ...
> >
> > We might turn operand_equal_p to a "worker" (template?) that
>
> Hmm, OK that is precisely what I was shooting for by this patch. I went by
> wrapping it to a class with valueize helper. It can be template, too, just it
> semed that having the single valueize function lets me do everything I need
> without actually needing to duplicate the code.
>
> I can get around templatizing it. Do you have some outline what interface
> would seem more fit>
I was thinking about
template <bool with_valueize>
int
operand_equal_p_1 (const_tree arg0, const_tree arg1, unsigned int flags,
tree (*valueize)(tree))
{
#define VALUEIZE(op) (with_valueize && valueize) ? valueize (op) : op
...
}
and
extern template <>
int operand_equal_p_1<false> (const_tree arg0, const_tree arg1,
unsigned int flags,
tree (*valueize)(tree));
extern template <>
int operand_equal_p_1<true> (const_tree arg0, const_tree arg1,
unsigned int flags,
tree (*valueize)(tree));
int
operand_equal_p (const_tree arg0, const_tree arg1, unsigned int flags)
{
return operand_equal_p_1<false> (arg0, arg1, flags, NULL);
}
we don't want to make 'valueize' a template parameter (that is,
we don't want to put operand_equal_p_1 to fold-const.h).
Same with an eventual 'gimple_p' template parameter (which eventually
could simply be the same as the with_valueize one).
I'm playing with the idea to make match-and-simplify similar,
providing explicit specializations for "common" valueize callbacks.
As it always has a valueize callback I'd do it like
template <tree (*fixed_valueize)(tree)>
bool
gimple_simplify (code_helper *res_code, tree *res_ops,
gimple_seq *seq, tree (*valueize)(tree),
code_helper code, tree type, tree op0)
{
#define do_valueize(op) \
fixed_valueize != (void *)-1 \
? (fixed_valueize ? fixed_valueize (op) : op) \
: (valueize ? valueize (op) : op)
...
}
Richard.
> > operand_equal_p and gimple_operand_equal_p can share (with an extra
> > flag whether to turn on GIMPLE stuff and/or valueization). And
> > then simply provide explicit instantiations for the original
> > operand_equal_p and a new gimple_operand_equal_p.
> >
> > Of course we'll only know if we like that when seeing a patch that
> > does this ;0)
> >
> > Richard.
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham
Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
