123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188 |
- Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
- ===================================================================
- --- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
- +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
- @@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
- scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
- }
-
- +/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
- + for scev_const_prop. */
- +
- +bool
- +expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
- +{
- + enum tree_code code;
- +
- + if (is_gimple_val (expr))
- + return false;
- +
- + code = TREE_CODE (expr);
- + if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
- + || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
- + || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
- + || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
- + || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
- + || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
- + || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
- + || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
- + || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
- + {
- + /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
- + Forbid anything else. */
- + if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
- + return true;
- + }
- +
- + switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
- + {
- + case tcc_binary:
- + case tcc_comparison:
- + if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
- + return true;
- +
- + /* Fallthru. */
- + case tcc_unary:
- + return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
- +
- + default:
- + return true;
- + }
- +}
- +
- /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
- appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
- in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
- @@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
- continue;
-
- niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
- - /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
- - and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
- - is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
- - expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
- - the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
- - eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
- if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
- continue;
-
- @@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
- /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
- of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
- on abnormal edges. */
- - || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
- + || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
- + /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
- + when someone writes a code like
- +
- + while (n > 45) n -= 45;
- +
- + he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
- + to be turned into n %= 45. */
- + || expression_expensive_p (def))
- continue;
-
- /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
- Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
- ===================================================================
- --- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
- +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
- @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
- extern void scev_analysis (void);
- unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
-
- +bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
- extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
-
- /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
- Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
- ===================================================================
- --- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
- +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
- @@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
- return ns;
- }
-
- -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
- +/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
- + to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
- + that anymore. */
- +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
- +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
- /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
- Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
- ===================================================================
- --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
- +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
- @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
- +/* { dg-do compile } */
- +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
- +
- +int foo (int n)
- +{
- + while (n >= 45)
- + n -= 45;
- +
- + return n;
- +}
- +
- +int bar (int n)
- +{
- + while (n >= 64)
- + n -= 64;
- +
- + return n;
- +}
- +
- +int bla (int n)
- +{
- + int i = 0;
- +
- + while (n >= 45)
- + {
- + i++;
- + n -= 45;
- + }
- +
- + return i;
- +}
- +
- +int baz (int n)
- +{
- + int i = 0;
- +
- + while (n >= 64)
- + {
- + i++;
- + n -= 64;
- + }
- +
- + return i;
- +}
- +
- +/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
- +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
- +
- +/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
- + by 64 are done using bit operations). */
- +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
- +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
- +
- +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
- +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
- Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
- ===================================================================
- --- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
- +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
- @@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
- return false;
-
- cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
- +
- *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
- + /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
- + would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
- + if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
- + return false;
- return true;
- }
|