Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-26 Thread Richard Biener 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
 wrote:
>
> On 22/04/16 12:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/04/16 11:34, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>

 On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
>
> On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
 2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

 gcc/
 * match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
 New transformations.

 gcc/testsuite/
 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.


>>>
>>> I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized
>>> "__builtin_fmin"
>>
>>
>> Strange, it seems to work in
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html
>>
>> Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be
>> disabled?
>>
>
> Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
> Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.
>

 Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
 Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, I have a hard time finding something related. I am not even
>>> convinced the test should be skipped. It looks like __builtin_fmax was
>>> recognized, otherwise you would get a warning and a conversion int-double.
>>> Maybe gimple_call_combined_fn rejects it? Ah, builtins.def declares it with
>>> DEF_C99_BUILTIN, which checks targetm.libc_has_function (function_c99_misc).
>>> I assume newlib fails that check? That would make c99_runtime a relevant
>>> target check.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, adding the below makes this test UNSUPPORTED on aarch64-none-elf.
>> /* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
>> /* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
>>
>> I'll prepare a patch.
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay, here it is.
> Ok to commit?

Ok.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
> 2016-04-25  Kyrylo Tkachov  
>
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: Require c99_runtime and add the
> associated options.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyrill
>
>

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-25 Thread Kyrill Tkachov 


On 22/04/16 12:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 22/04/16 11:34, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:



On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html

Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be disabled?



Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.



Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on?


I don't know, I have a hard time finding something related. I am not even convinced the test should be skipped. It looks like __builtin_fmax was recognized, otherwise you would get a warning and a conversion int-double. Maybe 
gimple_call_combined_fn rejects it? Ah, builtins.def declares it with DEF_C99_BUILTIN, which checks targetm.libc_has_function (function_c99_misc). I assume newlib fails that check? That would make c99_runtime a relevant target check.




Yeah, adding the below makes this test UNSUPPORTED on aarch64-none-elf.
/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */

I'll prepare a patch.



Sorry for the delay, here it is.
Ok to commit?

Thanks,
Kyrill

2016-04-25  Kyrylo Tkachov  

* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: Require c99_runtime and add the
associated options.


Thanks,
Kyrill


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c
index 98c38b1aa773d04a5d7cb36df73db8924d83ed65..87ff94cef1f3b178b315358f246c9a3f32383945 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-O -fstrict-overflow -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
 
 static int max(int a,int b){return (a

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Kyrill Tkachov 


On 22/04/16 11:34, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:



On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html

Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be disabled?



Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.



Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on?


I don't know, I have a hard time finding something related. I am not even convinced the test should be skipped. It looks like __builtin_fmax was recognized, otherwise you would get a warning and a conversion int-double. Maybe 
gimple_call_combined_fn rejects it? Ah, builtins.def declares it with DEF_C99_BUILTIN, which checks targetm.libc_has_function (function_c99_misc). I assume newlib fails that check? That would make c99_runtime a relevant target check.




Yeah, adding the below makes this test UNSUPPORTED on aarch64-none-elf.
/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */

I'll prepare a patch.

Thanks,
Kyrill

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Marc Glisse 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:



On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized 
"__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html


Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be 
disabled?




Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.



Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on?


I don't know, I have a hard time finding something related. I am not even 
convinced the test should be skipped. It looks like __builtin_fmax was 
recognized, otherwise you would get a warning and a conversion int-double. 
Maybe gimple_call_combined_fn rejects it? Ah, builtins.def declares it 
with DEF_C99_BUILTIN, which checks targetm.libc_has_function 
(function_c99_misc). I assume newlib fails that check? That would make 
c99_runtime a relevant target check.


--
Marc Glisse

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Kyrill Tkachov 


On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html

Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be disabled?



Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.



Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on?

Kyrill


Thanks,
Kyrill

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Kyrill Tkachov 


On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse 

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html

Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be disabled?



Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library.
Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you.

Thanks,
Kyrill

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Marc Glisse 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


2016-04-21  Marc Glisse  

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"


Strange, it seems to work in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html


Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be 
disabled?


--
Marc Glisse

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-22 Thread Kyrill Tkachov 

Hi Marc,

On 21/04/16 11:32, Marc Glisse wrote:

Hello,

another simple transformation.

Instead of the ":s", I had single_use (@2) || single_use (@3), but changed it for simplicity. There may be some patterns in match.pd where we want something like that though, as requiring single_use on many expressions may be stricter 
than we need.


We could generalize to cases where overflow is not undefined if we know (VRP) 
that the variables are not TYPE_MIN_VALUE, but that didn't look like a priority.

Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.

2016-04-21  Marc Glisse  

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.




I see the new testcase failing on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_fmin"

The tree dump for the function 'h' is:
h (double x, double y)
{
  double _2;
  double _4;
  double _5;

  :
  _2 = -x_1(D);
  _4 = -y_3(D);
  _5 = __builtin_fmax (_2, _4);
  return _5;

}

Kyrill

Re: match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-21 Thread Richard Biener 
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Marc Glisse  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> another simple transformation.
>
> Instead of the ":s", I had single_use (@2) || single_use (@3), but changed
> it for simplicity. There may be some patterns in match.pd where we want
> something like that though, as requiring single_use on many expressions may
> be stricter than we need.
>
> We could generalize to cases where overflow is not undefined if we know
> (VRP) that the variables are not TYPE_MIN_VALUE, but that didn't look like a
> priority.
>
> Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.

Ok.  I thought about using negate_expr_p but min(-x,5) -> -max(x, -5) doesn't
look like an obvious win.

Thanks,
Richard.

> 2016-04-21  Marc Glisse  
>
> gcc/
> * match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
> New transformations.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.
>
>
> --
> Marc Glisse
> Index: gcc/match.pd
> ===
> --- gcc/match.pd(revision 235292)
> +++ gcc/match.pd(working copy)
> @@ -1215,20 +1215,36 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
> MIN and MAX don't honor that, so only transform if -ffinite-math-only
> is set.  C99 doesn't require -0.0 to be handled, so we don't have to
> worry about it either.  */
>  (if (flag_finite_math_only)
>   (simplify
>(FMIN @0 @1)
>(min @0 @1))
>   (simplify
>(FMAX @0 @1)
>(max @0 @1)))
> +/* min (-A, -B) -> -max (A, B)  */
> +(for minmax (min max FMIN FMAX)
> + maxmin (max min FMAX FMIN)
> + (simplify
> +  (minmax (negate:s@2 @0) (negate:s@3 @1))
> +  (if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
> +   || (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
> +   && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0
> +   (negate (maxmin @0 @1)
> +/* MIN (~X, ~Y) -> ~MAX (X, Y)
> +   MAX (~X, ~Y) -> ~MIN (X, Y)  */
> +(for minmax (min max)
> + maxmin (max min)
> + (simplify
> +  (minmax (bit_not:s@2 @0) (bit_not:s@3 @1))
> +  (bit_not (maxmin @0 @1
>
>  /* Simplifications of shift and rotates.  */
>
>  (for rotate (lrotate rrotate)
>   (simplify
>(rotate integer_all_onesp@0 @1)
>@0))
>
>  /* Optimize -1 >> x for arithmetic right shifts.  */
>  (simplify
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c(revision 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c(working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O -fstrict-overflow -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
> +
> +static int max(int a,int b){return (a +int f(int x,int y){return max(-x,-y);}
> +int g(int x,int y){return max(~x,~y);}
> +double h(double x,double y){return __builtin_fmax(-x,-y);}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "optimized" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__builtin_fmin" "optimized" } } */
>

match.pd patch: min(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y)

2016-04-21 Thread Marc Glisse 

Hello,

another simple transformation.

Instead of the ":s", I had single_use (@2) || single_use (@3), but changed 
it for simplicity. There may be some patterns in match.pd where we want 
something like that though, as requiring single_use on many expressions 
may be stricter than we need.


We could generalize to cases where overflow is not undefined if we know 
(VRP) that the variables are not TYPE_MIN_VALUE, but that didn't look like 
a priority.


Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.

2016-04-21  Marc Glisse  

gcc/
* match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)):
New transformations.

gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase.


--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/match.pd
===
--- gcc/match.pd(revision 235292)
+++ gcc/match.pd(working copy)
@@ -1215,20 +1215,36 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
MIN and MAX don't honor that, so only transform if -ffinite-math-only
is set.  C99 doesn't require -0.0 to be handled, so we don't have to
worry about it either.  */
 (if (flag_finite_math_only)
  (simplify
   (FMIN @0 @1)
   (min @0 @1))
  (simplify
   (FMAX @0 @1)
   (max @0 @1)))
+/* min (-A, -B) -> -max (A, B)  */
+(for minmax (min max FMIN FMAX)
+ maxmin (max min FMAX FMIN)
+ (simplify
+  (minmax (negate:s@2 @0) (negate:s@3 @1))
+  (if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
+   || (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
+   && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0
+   (negate (maxmin @0 @1)
+/* MIN (~X, ~Y) -> ~MAX (X, Y)
+   MAX (~X, ~Y) -> ~MIN (X, Y)  */
+(for minmax (min max)
+ maxmin (max min)
+ (simplify
+  (minmax (bit_not:s@2 @0) (bit_not:s@3 @1))
+  (bit_not (maxmin @0 @1
 
 /* Simplifications of shift and rotates.  */
 
 (for rotate (lrotate rrotate)
  (simplify
   (rotate integer_all_onesp@0 @1)
   @0))
 
 /* Optimize -1 >> x for arithmetic right shifts.  */
 (simplify
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c(revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c(working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -fstrict-overflow -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+static int max(int a,int b){return (a