Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > BTW, it seems wrf also in many places uses MAX > > or MIN (always in pairs), would that be also > > something to optimize? > > Hmm, we'll already CSE copysign so the question is how to optimize > tem1 = MAX ; tem2= MIN

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:58:42AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:45:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Note, I won't have time to work on this in the near future (OpenMP work > > > still on the plate), so if James (or anyone else?) has time for that, it > > > would

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:18:01AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:57:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > >> 2015-10-01 James Greenhalgh > >> > >> * match.pd

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:58:42AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:45:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Note, I won't have time to work on this in the near future (OpenMP work > > > > still on the

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:18:01AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:57:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> >>

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:24 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:58:42AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:45:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > > > Note,

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > BTW, it seems wrf also in many places uses MAX >> > or MIN (always in pairs), would that be also >> > something to optimize? >> >> Hmm, we'll already

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:57:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> 2015-10-01 James Greenhalgh >> >> * match.pd (mult (COPYSIGN:s real_onep @0) @1): New simplifier. > > Also, please note

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:45:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > Note, I won't have time to work on this in the near future (OpenMP work > > still on the plate), so if James (or anyone else?) has time for that, it > > would be greatly appreciated. > > So maybe just open an enhancement bug for

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:24:32AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > PR67815. > > > > James, are you interested in this one, or would you prefer if I take it? > > I'm happy either way. > > I haven't looked at reassoc before, so I don't know my way wround it, and > I'm out of office for a

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 03:28:22PM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:57 AM, James Greenhalgh > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > If it is cheap enough to treat a floating-point value as an integer and > > to do bitwise arithmetic on it (as

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 7:51 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 03:28:22PM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:57 AM, James Greenhalgh >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> If it is cheap enough to

[Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

Hi, If it is cheap enough to treat a floating-point value as an integer and to do bitwise arithmetic on it (as it is for AArch64) we can rewrite: x * copysign (1.0, y) as: x ^ (y & (1 << sign_bit_position)) This patch implements that rewriting rule in match.pd, and a testcase expecting

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > Hi, > > If it is cheap enough to treat a floating-point value as an integer and > to do bitwise arithmetic on it (as it is for AArch64) we can rewrite: > > x * copysign (1.0, y) > > as: > > x ^ (y &

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

Hi, On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Matz wrote: > > > both cases. The catch is that strictly speaking (NaN * -1.0) needs to > > deliver NaN, not -NaN (operations involving quiet NaNs need to provide > > one of the input NaNs as result), and here both are

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 05:43:15PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > > > x * copysign (1.0, y) > > > > > > > > x ^ (y & (1 << sign_bit_position)) > > > > > > Also I think this can only be done for finite and non trapping types. > > > >

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

Hi, On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > But if x is a sNaN, then the multiplication will throw an exception, while > the transformed operation will not. Hmm, that's right, silly me. > So perhaps it should be guarded by > !HONOR_SNANS (TYPE_MODE (type)) > ? That makes sense, yes.

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Matz wrote: > both cases. The catch is that strictly speaking (NaN * -1.0) needs to > deliver NaN, not -NaN (operations involving quiet NaNs need to provide > one of the input NaNs as result), and here both are not equivalent. OTOH > the sign of NaNs isn't

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

Hi, On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > x * copysign (1.0, y) > > > > > > x ^ (y & (1 << sign_bit_position)) > > > > Also I think this can only be done for finite and non trapping types. > > That may be well true, I swithered either way and went for no checks, > but I'd

Re: [Patch match.pd] Add a simplify rule for x * copysign (1.0, y);

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:57:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > 2015-10-01 James Greenhalgh > > * match.pd (mult (COPYSIGN:s real_onep @0) @1): New simplifier. Also, please note that + wide_int m = wi::min_value (TYPE_PRECISION (type), SIGNED); +