Y_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
> > || TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type))
> > (negate (view_convert @1))
> > (view_convert (negate @1
> >
> > pattern. Once we'd "inline" nop_convert genmatch would complain
> > about this.
> >
> >>
k. Otherwise whether it works or not (as expected)
depends on placing
positions of the patterns ...
So no, it's not inherently "bad" but it's not designed to work.
> > Is someone working on inlining nop_convert? I'd like to avoid breaking
> > someone else's work if that's
this new pattern. I've attached a
patch with my latest changes.
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 2:59 AM
To: Victor Tong
Cc: Marc Glisse ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division followed by multiply [PR95176]
ra tests to cover this new pattern. I've attached a
patch with my latest changes.
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 2:59 AM
To: Victor Tong
Cc: Marc Glisse ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division
followed by mul
gt; is being applied in the right scenarios and not being applied in others, but
> I think there are too many possibilities to manually write them all. Is there
> anything in GCC that can be used to verify that match.pd transformations are
> correct? I'm thinking of something like Ali
Gentle ping.
From: Gcc-patches on
behalf of Victor Tong via Gcc-patches
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:10 PM
To: Richard Biener ; Marc Glisse
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division
followed
hem all. Is there
anything in GCC that can be used to verify that match.pd transformations are
correct? I'm thinking of something like Alive
https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2.
Thanks,
Victor
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 12:08 AM
To: Marc Glisse
Cc: Victor Tong ;
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 7:05 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> Option 2: Add a new pattern to support scenarios that the existing
> >> nop_convert pattern bails out on.
> >>
> >> Existing pattern:
> >>
> >> (simplify
> >>(minus (nop_convert1? @0)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
Option 2: Add a new pattern to support scenarios that the existing nop_convert
pattern bails out on.
Existing pattern:
(simplify
(minus (nop_convert1? @0) (nop_convert2? (minus (nop_convert3? @@0) @1)))
(view_convert @1))
I tried to check
gt; Y */
> +(simplify
> + (minus (convert1? @0) (convert2? (minus @@0 @1)))
> + (if ((INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) || VECTOR_INTEGER_TYPE_P (type)) &&
> TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED(type))
> + (convert @1)))
>
> would match (int)x - (int)(x - y) where you assert the outer subtra
, or if you can
think of a better option to fix the regression.
Thanks,
Victor
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 1:25 AM
To: Victor Tong
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division
followed by multiply [PR95176]
On
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:29 AM
> To: Victor Tong
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division followed
> by multiply [PR95176]
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 1:03 AM Victor Tong via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
>
s true, the second pattern that I added (X - (X - Y) --> Y) gets triggered.
Thanks,
Victor
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:29 AM
To: Victor Tong
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division followed
by multiply
13 matches
Mail list logo
