> I know Eric has committed a tweak here, but I view this magic handling as > something meant for boolean types only (if it is correct at all and the > right fix wouldn't be avoid the BIT_NOT_EXPR for the prec > 1 booleans, I > believe the expansion of BIT_NOT_EXPR doesn't have any special case for > BOOLEAN_TYPE). This patch just restores previous behavior for non-boolean > types (basically inlines the first two cases from ssa_name_has_boolean_range > while leaving the problematic third one out, normal integral types with > just known value range of [0,1]).
IMO you haven't justified why this is problematic in the BIT_NOT_EXPR case and not in the BIT_AND_EXPR case... -- Eric Botcazou
