| Message ID | 1ceb9248-9146-ff56-d914-5abe6deea0fa@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, kugan wrote: > Hi Richard, > Thanks for the review. > > On 04/10/16 19:56, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, kugan wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This patch improves Early VRP by folding stmts using vrp_fold_stmt as it > > > is > > > done in ssa_propagate for VRP. > > > > Why? > > I thought it would be good for early vrp to simplify stmts using ranges. If we > simplify obvious cases early, wouldn't it be better for IPA/LTO? > > I'd like us to move away from the fold_stmt callback of > > substitute-and-fold (I have actually started some work towards that). > > I must have missed it. But what is the general issue with > substitute-and-fold. The pass specific stmt folding hook is a distraction and causes extra work. Most of the things the CCP variant does are no longer necessary for example. First and foremost I'm trying to enable "dce" in substitute-and-fold for VRP and handle ASSERT_EXPR "removal" by means of propagation -- this should fix quite a few missed pattern matchings with fold_stmt which when running into ASSERT_EXPRs just give up. > > > > > I have also changed EVRP to handle POINTER_TYPE_P. I will send follow up > > > patches to use this in IPA-VRP. > > > > For pointers all VRP does is track non-NULLness. Can you split out this > > part? > Attached patch does that. That patch is ok. > > I'm really worried about all the testsuite changes -- it means we are > > losing test coverage for VRP :/ > > As you said earlier, unit testing with gimple FE should help. I am also > wondering if we should organize these testcases such that it is run once > without evrp and once with evrp to test both? Yeah, that would be nice. I always wondered about adding the ability to add a "local torture" to individual testcases, say { dg-do compile } { dg-torture-options { "-O2 -fdisable-tree-evrp" "-O2" } } (and make it be "additional" torture options when in dg-torture.exp) Requires TCL hacking which isn't exactly my favourite... Alternatively (seen elsewhere) put the testcase in a header and have two testcases include it, with different dg-options ... Richard. > Thanks, > Kugan > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2016-10-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > * tree-vrp.c (evrp_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Handle > POINTER_TYPE_P. > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2016-10-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c: New test. > > > > > Richard. > > > > > Bootstrapped and regression testd on x86_64-linux-gnu with no new > > > regressions. > > > Is this OK for trunk? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kugan > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > 2016-10-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > > > > > * gcc.dg/pr68217.c: Adjust testcase as more cases are now handled in > > > evrp. > > > * gcc.dg/predict-1.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/predict-9.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr20318.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21001.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21090.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21294.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21559.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21563.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23744.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr25382.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61839_1.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr68431.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp03.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp07.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp09.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp17.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp18.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp19.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp20.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp23.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp24.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp58.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp92.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp98.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/vrp-min-max-1.c: Likewise. > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > 2016-10-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > > > > > * tree-vrp.c (evrp_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Handle > > > POINTER_TYPE_P. Also fold stmts with vrp_fold_stmt. > > > > > >
From c9badd0cee1433af67ba5e1a45a90b4b659a244f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 06:12:05 +1100 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] Handle pointer type in evrp --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/tree-vrp.c | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ebb87ed --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-evrp" } */ + +int foo (int *p); + +struct st +{ + int a; + int b; +}; + +int bar (struct st *s) +{ + + if (!s) + return 0; + foo (&s->a); +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "\~\\\[0B, 0B\\\]" "evrp" } } */ diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c index 7a08be7..46bbd82 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c @@ -10666,7 +10666,8 @@ evrp_dom_walker::before_dom_children (basic_block bb) && gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_COND && (op0 = gimple_cond_lhs (stmt)) && TREE_CODE (op0) == SSA_NAME - && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_cond_lhs (stmt)))) + && (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_cond_lhs (stmt))) + || POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_cond_lhs (stmt))))) { /* Entering a new scope. Try to see if we can find a VR here. */ -- 2.7.4