On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
+/* From fold_unary. */
+
+/* (T1)(~(T2) X) -> ~(T1) X */
+(simplify
+ (convert (bit_not@0 (convert @1)))
+ (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
+ && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
+ && TYPE_PRECISION (type) == TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@0))
+ && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1))
+ && TYPE_PRECISION (type) <= TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (@1)))
+ (bit_not (convert (bit_not @0)))))
There are a lot of bit_not in this line...
I know the patterns themselves aren't your main preoccupation right now,
and I agree that finishing the infrastructure is the priority, but it
seems that the comments are becoming much terser during the move from
fold-const to *.pd. I believe the == could be <=, so I wanted to check the
rationale, and fold-const at least tries to explain the condition. It
would be nice to copy-paste those comments, if the version in fold-const.c
is supposed to disappear.
(if that's planned for later, please ignore my message)
--
Marc Glisse
