PR tree-optimization/108359 - Utilize op1 == op2 when invoking range-ops folding.
Commit Message
fold_range() already invokes wi_fold_in_parts to try to get more refined
information. If the subranges are quite small, it will do each
individual calculation and combine the results.
x * y with x = [1,3] and y = [1,3] is broken down and we calculate each
possibility and we end up with [1,4][6,6][9,9] instead of [1,9]
We limit this as the time is between quadratic to exponential depending
on the number of elements in x and y.
If we also check the relation and determine that x == y, we don't need
to worry about that growth as this process is linear. The above case
will be broken down to just 1*1, 2*2 and 3*3, resulting in a range of
[1, 1][4,4][9,9].
In the testcase, it happens to be the right_shift operation, but this
solution is generic and applies to all range-op operations. I added a
testcase which checks >>, *, + and %.
I also arbitrarily chose 8 elements as the limit for breaking down
individual operations. The overall compile time change for this is
negligible.
Although this is a regression fix, it will affect all operations where x
== y, which is where my initial hesitancy arose.
Regardless, bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK
for trunk?
Andrew
Comments
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> fold_range() already invokes wi_fold_in_parts to try to get more refined
> information. If the subranges are quite small, it will do each individual
> calculation and combine the results.
>
> x * y with x = [1,3] and y = [1,3] is broken down and we calculate each
> possibility and we end up with [1,4][6,6][9,9] instead of [1,9]
>
> We limit this as the time is between quadratic to exponential depending on
> the number of elements in x and y.
>
> If we also check the relation and determine that x == y, we don't need to
> worry about that growth as this process is linear. The above case will be
> broken down to just 1*1, 2*2 and 3*3, resulting in a range of [1,
> 1][4,4][9,9].
>
> In the testcase, it happens to be the right_shift operation, but this
> solution is generic and applies to all range-op operations. I added a
> testcase which checks >>, *, + and %.
>
> I also arbitrarily chose 8 elements as the limit for breaking down
> individual operations. The overall compile time change for this is
> negligible.
>
> Although this is a regression fix, it will affect all operations where x ==
> y, which is where my initial hesitancy arose.
>
> Regardless, bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for
> trunk?
Will defer to Aldy, just some nits.
> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
> + {
> + unsigned x;
> + for (x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
Nothing uses x after the loop, so why not
for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
instead?
> @@ -234,6 +264,26 @@ range_operator::fold_range (irange &r, tree type,
> unsigned num_lh = lh.num_pairs ();
> unsigned num_rh = rh.num_pairs ();
>
> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && (lh == rh))
The ()s around lh == rh look superfluous to me.
> + {
> + int_range_max tmp;
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
fold_range has an upper bound of num_lh * num_rh > 12, shouldn't something
like that be there for this case too?
I mean, every wi_fold_in_parts_equiv can result in 8 subranges,
but num_lh could be up to 255 here, it is true it is linear and union_
should merge excess ones, but still I wonder if some larger num_lh upper
bound like 20 or 32 wouldn't be useful. Up to you...
> + {
> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
> + r.union_ (tmp);
> + if (r.varying_p ())
> + break;
> + }
> + op1_op2_relation_effect (r, type, lh, rh, rel);
> + update_known_bitmask (r, m_code, lh, rh);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
Jakub
On 1/13/23 16:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> fold_range() already invokes wi_fold_in_parts to try to get more refined
>> information. If the subranges are quite small, it will do each individual
>> calculation and combine the results.
>>
>> x * y with x = [1,3] and y = [1,3] is broken down and we calculate each
>> possibility and we end up with [1,4][6,6][9,9] instead of [1,9]
>>
>> We limit this as the time is between quadratic to exponential depending on
>> the number of elements in x and y.
>>
>> If we also check the relation and determine that x == y, we don't need to
>> worry about that growth as this process is linear. The above case will be
>> broken down to just 1*1, 2*2 and 3*3, resulting in a range of [1,
>> 1][4,4][9,9].
>>
>> In the testcase, it happens to be the right_shift operation, but this
>> solution is generic and applies to all range-op operations. I added a
>> testcase which checks >>, *, + and %.
>>
>> I also arbitrarily chose 8 elements as the limit for breaking down
>> individual operations. The overall compile time change for this is
>> negligible.
>>
>> Although this is a regression fix, it will affect all operations where x ==
>> y, which is where my initial hesitancy arose.
>>
>> Regardless, bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for
>> trunk?
> Will defer to Aldy, just some nits.
Did you mean Richi?
>
>> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
>> + r.set_undefined ();
>> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
>> + {
>> + unsigned x;
>> + for (x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
> Nothing uses x after the loop, so why not
> for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
> instead?
Just old habits.
>> @@ -234,6 +264,26 @@ range_operator::fold_range (irange &r, tree type,
>> unsigned num_lh = lh.num_pairs ();
>> unsigned num_rh = rh.num_pairs ();
>>
>> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
>> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
>> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && (lh == rh))
> The ()s around lh == rh look superfluous to me.
Yeah I just found it marginally more readable, but it is superfluous
>> + {
>> + int_range_max tmp;
>> + r.set_undefined ();
>> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
> fold_range has an upper bound of num_lh * num_rh > 12, shouldn't something
> like that be there for this case too?
> I mean, every wi_fold_in_parts_equiv can result in 8 subranges,
> but num_lh could be up to 255 here, it is true it is linear and union_
> should merge excess ones, but still I wonder if some larger num_lh upper
> bound like 20 or 32 wouldn't be useful. Up to you...
fold_range has the num_lh * num_rh limit because it was
quadratic/exponential and changes rapidly. Since this was linear based
on the number of sub ranges I didn't think it would matter much, but
sure, we can put a similar limit on it.. 16 seems reasonable.
>> + {
>> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
>> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
>> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
>> + r.union_ (tmp);
>> + if (r.varying_p ())
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + op1_op2_relation_effect (r, type, lh, rh, rel);
>> + update_known_bitmask (r, m_code, lh, rh);
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
> Jakub
>
Updated patch attached... I'll run it through testing whe the current
one is done.
Andrew
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:07 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/13/23 16:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> fold_range() already invokes wi_fold_in_parts to try to get more refined
> >> information. If the subranges are quite small, it will do each individual
> >> calculation and combine the results.
> >>
> >> x * y with x = [1,3] and y = [1,3] is broken down and we calculate each
> >> possibility and we end up with [1,4][6,6][9,9] instead of [1,9]
> >>
> >> We limit this as the time is between quadratic to exponential depending on
> >> the number of elements in x and y.
> >>
> >> If we also check the relation and determine that x == y, we don't need to
> >> worry about that growth as this process is linear. The above case will be
> >> broken down to just 1*1, 2*2 and 3*3, resulting in a range of [1,
> >> 1][4,4][9,9].
> >>
> >> In the testcase, it happens to be the right_shift operation, but this
> >> solution is generic and applies to all range-op operations. I added a
> >> testcase which checks >>, *, + and %.
> >>
> >> I also arbitrarily chose 8 elements as the limit for breaking down
> >> individual operations. The overall compile time change for this is
> >> negligible.
> >>
> >> Although this is a regression fix, it will affect all operations where x ==
> >> y, which is where my initial hesitancy arose.
> >>
> >> Regardless, bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for
> >> trunk?
> > Will defer to Aldy, just some nits.
> Did you mean Richi?
I suppose Aldy, since it's a regression fix it's OK even during stage4.
I do have a comment as well though, you do
+ // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
+ // product, just pairs of matching elements.
+ if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && lh == rh && num_lh <= 16)
+ {
+ int_range_max tmp;
+ r.set_undefined ();
+ for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
+ {
+ wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
+ wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
+ wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
and that does
+ widest_int lh_range = wi::sub (widest_int::from (lh_ub, TYPE_SIGN (type)),
+ widest_int::from (lh_lb, TYPE_SIGN (type)));
+ // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
+ r.set_undefined ();
+ if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
+ {
+ for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
which in total limits the number of sub-ranges in the output but in an
odd way. It's also all-or-nothing. IIRC there's a hard limit on the
number of sub-ranges in the output anyway via int_range<N>, so
why not use that and always do the first loop over the sub-ranges
of the inputs and the second loop over the range members but
stop when we reach N-1 and then use wi_fold on the remainds?
Your above code suggests we go up to 112 sub-ranges and once
we'd reach 113 we'd fold down to a single.
Maybe my "heuristic" wouldn't be much better, but then somehow
breaking the heuristic down to a single magic number would be
better, esp. since .union_ will undo some of the breakup when
reaching N?
> >
> >> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
> >> + r.set_undefined ();
> >> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
> >> + {
> >> + unsigned x;
> >> + for (x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
> > Nothing uses x after the loop, so why not
> > for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
> > instead?
>
> Just old habits.
>
>
> >> @@ -234,6 +264,26 @@ range_operator::fold_range (irange &r, tree type,
> >> unsigned num_lh = lh.num_pairs ();
> >> unsigned num_rh = rh.num_pairs ();
> >>
> >> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
> >> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
> >> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && (lh == rh))
> > The ()s around lh == rh look superfluous to me.
> Yeah I just found it marginally more readable, but it is superfluous
> >> + {
> >> + int_range_max tmp;
> >> + r.set_undefined ();
> >> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
> > fold_range has an upper bound of num_lh * num_rh > 12, shouldn't something
> > like that be there for this case too?
> > I mean, every wi_fold_in_parts_equiv can result in 8 subranges,
> > but num_lh could be up to 255 here, it is true it is linear and union_
> > should merge excess ones, but still I wonder if some larger num_lh upper
> > bound like 20 or 32 wouldn't be useful. Up to you...
> fold_range has the num_lh * num_rh limit because it was
> quadratic/exponential and changes rapidly. Since this was linear based
> on the number of sub ranges I didn't think it would matter much, but
> sure, we can put a similar limit on it.. 16 seems reasonable.
> >> + {
> >> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
> >> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
> >> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
> >> + r.union_ (tmp);
> >> + if (r.varying_p ())
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> + op1_op2_relation_effect (r, type, lh, rh, rel);
> >> + update_known_bitmask (r, m_code, lh, rh);
> >> + return true;
> >> + }
> >> +
> > Jakub
> >
> Updated patch attached... I'll run it through testing whe the current
> one is done.
>
>
> Andrew
On 1/16/23 08:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:07 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/23 16:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> fold_range() already invokes wi_fold_in_parts to try to get more refined
>>>> information. If the subranges are quite small, it will do each individual
>>>> calculation and combine the results.
>>>>
>>>> x * y with x = [1,3] and y = [1,3] is broken down and we calculate each
>>>> possibility and we end up with [1,4][6,6][9,9] instead of [1,9]
>>>>
>>>> We limit this as the time is between quadratic to exponential depending on
>>>> the number of elements in x and y.
>>>>
>>>> If we also check the relation and determine that x == y, we don't need to
>>>> worry about that growth as this process is linear. The above case will be
>>>> broken down to just 1*1, 2*2 and 3*3, resulting in a range of [1,
>>>> 1][4,4][9,9].
>>>>
>>>> In the testcase, it happens to be the right_shift operation, but this
>>>> solution is generic and applies to all range-op operations. I added a
>>>> testcase which checks >>, *, + and %.
>>>>
>>>> I also arbitrarily chose 8 elements as the limit for breaking down
>>>> individual operations. The overall compile time change for this is
>>>> negligible.
>>>>
>>>> Although this is a regression fix, it will affect all operations where x ==
>>>> y, which is where my initial hesitancy arose.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions. OK for
>>>> trunk?
>>> Will defer to Aldy, just some nits.
>> Did you mean Richi?
>
> I suppose Aldy, since it's a regression fix it's OK even during stage4.
I don't have any issues with the patch. Whatever the release managers
agree to, I'm fine with.
Aldy
>
> I do have a comment as well though, you do
>
> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && lh == rh && num_lh <= 16)
> + {
> + int_range_max tmp;
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
> + {
> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
>
> and that does
>
> + widest_int lh_range = wi::sub (widest_int::from (lh_ub, TYPE_SIGN (type)),
> + widest_int::from (lh_lb, TYPE_SIGN (type)));
> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
> + {
> + for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
>
> which in total limits the number of sub-ranges in the output but in an
> odd way. It's also all-or-nothing. IIRC there's a hard limit on the
> number of sub-ranges in the output anyway via int_range<N>, so
> why not use that and always do the first loop over the sub-ranges
> of the inputs and the second loop over the range members but
> stop when we reach N-1 and then use wi_fold on the remainds?
>
> Your above code suggests we go up to 112 sub-ranges and once
> we'd reach 113 we'd fold down to a single.
>
> Maybe my "heuristic" wouldn't be much better, but then somehow
> breaking the heuristic down to a single magic number would be
> better, esp. since .union_ will undo some of the breakup when
> reaching N?
>
>>>
>>>> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
>>>> + r.set_undefined ();
>>>> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
>>>> + {
>>>> + unsigned x;
>>>> + for (x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
>>> Nothing uses x after the loop, so why not
>>> for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
>>> instead?
>>
>> Just old habits.
>>
>>
>>>> @@ -234,6 +264,26 @@ range_operator::fold_range (irange &r, tree type,
>>>> unsigned num_lh = lh.num_pairs ();
>>>> unsigned num_rh = rh.num_pairs ();
>>>>
>>>> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
>>>> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
>>>> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && (lh == rh))
>>> The ()s around lh == rh look superfluous to me.
>> Yeah I just found it marginally more readable, but it is superfluous
>>>> + {
>>>> + int_range_max tmp;
>>>> + r.set_undefined ();
>>>> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
>>> fold_range has an upper bound of num_lh * num_rh > 12, shouldn't something
>>> like that be there for this case too?
>>> I mean, every wi_fold_in_parts_equiv can result in 8 subranges,
>>> but num_lh could be up to 255 here, it is true it is linear and union_
>>> should merge excess ones, but still I wonder if some larger num_lh upper
>>> bound like 20 or 32 wouldn't be useful. Up to you...
>> fold_range has the num_lh * num_rh limit because it was
>> quadratic/exponential and changes rapidly. Since this was linear based
>> on the number of sub ranges I didn't think it would matter much, but
>> sure, we can put a similar limit on it.. 16 seems reasonable.
>>>> + {
>>>> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
>>>> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
>>>> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
>>>> + r.union_ (tmp);
>>>> + if (r.varying_p ())
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + op1_op2_relation_effect (r, type, lh, rh, rel);
>>>> + update_known_bitmask (r, m_code, lh, rh);
>>>> + return true;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>> Jakub
>>>
>> Updated patch attached... I'll run it through testing whe the current
>> one is done.
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:19:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> + // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
> + // product, just pairs of matching elements.
> + if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && lh == rh && num_lh <= 16)
> + {
> + int_range_max tmp;
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
> + {
> + wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
> + wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
> + wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
>
> and that does
>
> + widest_int lh_range = wi::sub (widest_int::from (lh_ub, TYPE_SIGN (type)),
> + widest_int::from (lh_lb, TYPE_SIGN (type)));
> + // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
> + r.set_undefined ();
> + if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
> + {
> + for (unsigned x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
>
> which in total limits the number of sub-ranges in the output but in an
> odd way. It's also all-or-nothing. IIRC there's a hard limit on the
> number of sub-ranges in the output anyway via int_range<N>, so
> why not use that and always do the first loop over the sub-ranges
> of the inputs and the second loop over the range members but
> stop when we reach N-1 and then use wi_fold on the remainds?
>
> Your above code suggests we go up to 112 sub-ranges and once
> we'd reach 113 we'd fold down to a single.
>
> Maybe my "heuristic" wouldn't be much better, but then somehow
> breaking the heuristic down to a single magic number would be
> better, esp. since .union_ will undo some of the breakup when
> reaching N?
The <= X in the first case is what I've suggested, the previous
behavior didn't suffer from this all or nothing case, but I was worried
because the behavior is that we create many subranges and then in the
end just merge the last ones into a single subrange such that it fits
into the limit. So we could create 255 * 8 subranges and then merge the
last 255 * 7 + 1 into one.
We could call that wi_fold_in_parts_equiv only if r.num_parts () <
m_max_ranges and wi_fold otherwise...
Jakub
From fd50dabc626cea1886ebb517ca24c8b8f199c3aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 18:12:51 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Utilize op1 == op2 when invoking range-ops folding.
If there exists an equivalence relationship between op1 and op2,
any binary operation can be broken into individual operations and
unioned if there are sufficently few elements in the set.
PR tree-optimization/108359
gcc/
* range-op.cc (range_operator::wi_fold_in_parts_equiv): New.
(range_operator::fold_range): If op1 is equivalent to op2 then
invoke new fold_in_parts_equiv to operate on sub-components.
* range-op.h (wi_fold_in_parts_equiv): New prototype.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr108359.c: New.
---
gcc/range-op.cc | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/range-op.h | 5 ++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108359.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108359.c
@@ -160,6 +160,36 @@ range_operator::wi_fold (irange &r, tree type,
r.set_varying (type);
}
+// Call wi_fold when both op1 and op2 are equivalent. Further split small
+// subranges into constants. This can provide better precision.
+// For x + y, when x == y with a range of [0,4] instead of [0, 8] produce
+// [0,0][2, 2][4,4][6, 6][8, 8]
+
+void
+range_operator::wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (irange &r, tree type,
+ const wide_int &lh_lb,
+ const wide_int &lh_ub) const
+{
+ int_range_max tmp;
+ widest_int lh_range = wi::sub (widest_int::from (lh_ub, TYPE_SIGN (type)),
+ widest_int::from (lh_lb, TYPE_SIGN (type)));
+ // if there are 1 to 8 values in the LH range, split them up.
+ r.set_undefined ();
+ if (lh_range >= 0 && lh_range <= 7)
+ {
+ unsigned x;
+ for (x = 0; x <= lh_range; x++)
+ {
+ wide_int val = lh_lb + x;
+ wi_fold (tmp, type, val, val, val, val);
+ r.union_ (tmp);
+ }
+ }
+ // Otherwise just call wi_fold.
+ else
+ wi_fold (r, type, lh_lb, lh_ub, lh_lb, lh_ub);
+}
+
// Call wi_fold, except further split small subranges into constants.
// This can provide better precision. For something 8 >> [0,1]
// Instead of [8, 16], we will produce [8,8][16,16]
@@ -234,6 +264,26 @@ range_operator::fold_range (irange &r, tree type,
unsigned num_lh = lh.num_pairs ();
unsigned num_rh = rh.num_pairs ();
+ // If op1 and op2 are equivalences, then we don't need a complete cross
+ // product, just pairs of matching elements.
+ if (relation_equiv_p (rel) && (lh == rh))
+ {
+ int_range_max tmp;
+ r.set_undefined ();
+ for (unsigned x = 0; x < num_lh; ++x)
+ {
+ wide_int lh_lb = lh.lower_bound (x);
+ wide_int lh_ub = lh.upper_bound (x);
+ wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (tmp, type, lh_lb, lh_ub);
+ r.union_ (tmp);
+ if (r.varying_p ())
+ break;
+ }
+ op1_op2_relation_effect (r, type, lh, rh, rel);
+ update_known_bitmask (r, m_code, lh, rh);
+ return true;
+ }
+
// If both ranges are single pairs, fold directly into the result range.
// If the number of subranges grows too high, produce a summary result as the
// loop becomes exponential with little benefit. See PR 103821.
@@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ protected:
const wide_int &rh_lb,
const wide_int &rh_ub) const;
+ // Called by fold range to split small subranges into parts when op1 == op2
+ void wi_fold_in_parts_equiv (irange &r, tree type,
+ const wide_int &lb,
+ const wide_int &ub) const;
+
// Tree code of the range operator or ERROR_MARK if unknown.
tree_code m_code;
};
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+
+/* PR test case. */
+int b = 10;
+int c;
+char e;
+void foo();
+static char(a)(char f, char g) { return f && g == 1 ? 0 : f % g; }
+short(d)(short f, short g) { return f * g; }
+int main() {
+ short h;
+ int i;
+ unsigned j;
+ h = d(b && c, 5);
+ j = h;
+ i = a(h, 237);
+ unsigned k = i;
+ e = i < 0 || k >= 32 ? 0 : i >> k;
+ if (e) {
+ c = 0;
+ foo();
+ }
+}
+
+
+/* Also Check that small ranges are broken down and optimized properly
+ in the egneric case. This function should always return 0. */
+
+int otherfunc (int x, int z) {
+ if (x < 0 || x > 6 )
+ return 0;
+
+ if (x == z)
+ {
+ if (x >> z > 0)
+ return 1;
+ if (x * z > 26 && x * z < 35)
+ return 1;
+ if (x + z == 5)
+ return 1;
+ if ((x + z) % 2 == 1)
+ return 1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "foo" "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "return 1" "optimized" } } */
--
2.38.1