Re: match.pd: (x | y) ~x - y ~x

2015-05-23 Thread Richard Biener 
On May 22, 2015 10:54:02 PM GMT+02:00, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:

 On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
wrote:

 we already have the more complicated: x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y (which
I am
 reindenting by the way) and the simpler: (~x | y)  x - x  y, so I
am
 proposing this one for completeness. Regtested on
ppc64le-redhat-linux.

 Ok (doesn't seem to be in fold-const.c).

 Btw, there are quite some (simple) ones only in fold-const.c which
are 
 eligible for moving to match.pd (thus remove them from fold-const.c
and 
 implement in match.pd).  Mostly canonicalization ones though.

Haven't you already done a lot of those in the branch though?

Yeah, maybe.  I'd have to check.

Reminds me to come back to all this. After sorting out all the vectorizer stuff 
I am working on at the moment.

Richard.

Re: match.pd: (x | y) ~x - y ~x

2015-05-22 Thread Marc Glisse 

On Mon, 18 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:


we already have the more complicated: x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y (which I am
reindenting by the way) and the simpler: (~x | y)  x - x  y, so I am
proposing this one for completeness. Regtested on ppc64le-redhat-linux.


Ok (doesn't seem to be in fold-const.c).

Btw, there are quite some (simple) ones only in fold-const.c which are 
eligible for moving to match.pd (thus remove them from fold-const.c and 
implement in match.pd).  Mostly canonicalization ones though.


Haven't you already done a lot of those in the branch though?

--
Marc Glisse

Re: match.pd: (x | y) ~x - y ~x

2015-05-18 Thread Richard Biener 
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
 Hello,

 we already have the more complicated: x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y (which I am
 reindenting by the way) and the simpler: (~x | y)  x - x  y, so I am
 proposing this one for completeness. Regtested on ppc64le-redhat-linux.

Ok (doesn't seem to be in fold-const.c).

Btw, there are quite some (simple) ones only in fold-const.c which are eligible
for moving to match.pd (thus remove them from fold-const.c and implement in
match.pd).  Mostly canonicalization ones though.

Richard.

 2015-05-15  Marc Glisse  marc.gli...@inria.fr

 gcc/
 * match.pd ((x | y)  ~x - y  ~x, (x  y) | ~x - y | ~x): New
 simplifications.
 gcc/testsuite/
 * gcc.dg/nand.c: New testcase.

 --
 Marc Glisse
 Index: match.pd
 ===
 --- match.pd(revision 223217)
 +++ match.pd(working copy)
 @@ -257,24 +257,32 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.

  /* x + (x  1) - (x + 1)  ~1 */
  (simplify
   (plus:c @0 (bit_and@2 @0 integer_onep@1))
   (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
(bit_and (plus @0 @1) (bit_not @1

  /* x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y */
  /* x | ~(x | y) - x | ~y  */
  (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
 -  (simplify
 -(bitop:c @0 (bit_not (bitop:c@2 @0 @1)))
 -  (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
 -   (bitop @0 (bit_not @1)
 + (simplify
 +  (bitop:c @0 (bit_not (bitop:c@2 @0 @1)))
 +   (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
 +(bitop @0 (bit_not @1)
 +
 +/* (x | y)  ~x - y  ~x */
 +/* (x  y) | ~x - y | ~x */
 +(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
 + rbitop (bit_ior bit_and)
 + (simplify
 +  (bitop:c (rbitop:c @0 @1) (bit_not@2 @0))
 +  (bitop @1 @2)))

  (simplify
   (abs (negate @0))
   (abs @0))
  (simplify
   (abs tree_expr_nonnegative_p@0)
   @0)


  /* Try to fold (type) X op CST - (type) (X op ((type-x) CST))
 Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c
 ===
 --- testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c (revision 0)
 +++ testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c (working copy)
 @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
 +/* { dg-do compile } */
 +/* { dg-options -O -fdump-tree-original } */
 +
 +unsigned f(unsigned x, unsigned y){
 +  return (x | y)  ~x;
 +}
 +unsigned g(unsigned x, unsigned y){
 +  return ~x  (y | x);
 +}
 +
 +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times return ~x  y; 2 original } } */
 +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump original } } */

match.pd: (x | y) ~x - y ~x

2015-05-15 Thread Marc Glisse 

Hello,

we already have the more complicated: x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y (which I am 
reindenting by the way) and the simpler: (~x | y)  x - x  y, so I am 
proposing this one for completeness. Regtested on ppc64le-redhat-linux.


2015-05-15  Marc Glisse  marc.gli...@inria.fr

gcc/
* match.pd ((x | y)  ~x - y  ~x, (x  y) | ~x - y | ~x): New
simplifications.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/nand.c: New testcase.

--
Marc GlisseIndex: match.pd
===
--- match.pd(revision 223217)
+++ match.pd(working copy)
@@ -257,24 +257,32 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
 
 /* x + (x  1) - (x + 1)  ~1 */
 (simplify
  (plus:c @0 (bit_and@2 @0 integer_onep@1))
  (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
   (bit_and (plus @0 @1) (bit_not @1
 
 /* x  ~(x  y) - x  ~y */
 /* x | ~(x | y) - x | ~y  */
 (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
-  (simplify
-(bitop:c @0 (bit_not (bitop:c@2 @0 @1)))
-  (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
-   (bitop @0 (bit_not @1)
+ (simplify
+  (bitop:c @0 (bit_not (bitop:c@2 @0 @1)))
+   (if (TREE_CODE (@2) != SSA_NAME || has_single_use (@2))
+(bitop @0 (bit_not @1)
+
+/* (x | y)  ~x - y  ~x */
+/* (x  y) | ~x - y | ~x */
+(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
+ rbitop (bit_ior bit_and)
+ (simplify
+  (bitop:c (rbitop:c @0 @1) (bit_not@2 @0))
+  (bitop @1 @2)))
 
 (simplify
  (abs (negate @0))
  (abs @0))
 (simplify
  (abs tree_expr_nonnegative_p@0)
  @0)
 
 
 /* Try to fold (type) X op CST - (type) (X op ((type-x) CST))
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c
===
--- testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.dg/nand.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options -O -fdump-tree-original } */
+
+unsigned f(unsigned x, unsigned y){
+  return (x | y)  ~x;
+}
+unsigned g(unsigned x, unsigned y){
+  return ~x  (y | x);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times return ~x  y; 2 original } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump original } } */