Hi Marc,
On 28/08/15 19:07, Marc Glisse wrote:
(not a review, I haven't even read the whole patch)
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Andre Vieira wrote:
2015-08-03 Andre Vieira <[email protected]>
* match.pd: Added new patterns:
((X {&,<<,>>} C0) {|,^} C1) {^,|} C2)
(X {|,^,&} C0) {<<,>>} C1 -> (X {<<,>>} C1) {|,^,&} (C0 {<<,>>} C1)
+(for op0 (rshift rshift lshift lshift bit_and bit_and)
+ op1 (bit_ior bit_xor bit_ior bit_xor bit_ior bit_xor)
+ op2 (bit_xor bit_ior bit_xor bit_ior bit_xor bit_ior)
You can nest for-loops, it seems clearer as:
(for op0 (rshift lshift bit_and)
(for op1 (bit_ior bit_xor)
op2 (bit_xor bit_ior)
Will do, thank you for pointing it out.
+(simplify
+ (op2:c
+ (op1:c
+ (op0 @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2) INTEGER_CST@3)
I suspect you will want more :s (single_use) and less :c (canonicalization
should put constants in second position).
I can't find the definition of :s (single_use). GCC internals do point
out that canonicalization does put constants in the second position,
didnt see that first. Thank you for pointing it out.
+ C1 = wi::bit_and_not (C1,C2);
Space after ','.
Will do.
Having wide_int_storage in many places is surprising, I can't find similar
code anywhere else in gcc.
I tried looking for examples of something similar, I think I ended up
using wide_int because I was able to convert easily to and from it and
it has the "mask" and "wide_int_to_tree" functions. I welcome any
suggestions on what I should be using here for integer constant
transformations and comparisons.
BR,
Andre
