On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 03:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> The reason why we punt is the unexpected _4 != 1 condition, the code
> >>> is prepared to handle just _4 == 0 (or _4 != 0) where _4 == 0 is
On 08/03/2017 03:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> The reason why we punt is the unexpected _4 != 1 condition, the code
>>> is prepared to handle just _4 == 0 (or _4 != 0) where _4 == 0 is equivalent
>>> to _4 != 1 for boolean type.
>>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The reason why we punt is the unexpected _4 != 1 condition, the code
> > is prepared to handle just _4 == 0 (or _4 != 0) where _4 == 0 is equivalent
> > to _4 != 1 for boolean type.
>
> Hmm, I thought we had code to canonicalize b
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> For the PR81588 testcase, on targets with branch cost 1, we end up with:
> b.0_1 = b;
> _2 = (long long int) b.0_1;
> a.1_3 = a;
> _4 = _2 > a.1_3;
> _5 = (int) _4;
> if (a.1_3 < 0)
> goto ; [36.00%] [count: INV]
> else
> go
Hi!
For the PR81588 testcase, on targets with branch cost 1, we end up with:
b.0_1 = b;
_2 = (long long int) b.0_1;
a.1_3 = a;
_4 = _2 > a.1_3;
_5 = (int) _4;
if (a.1_3 < 0)
goto ; [36.00%] [count: INV]
else
goto ; [64.00%] [count: INV]
[64.00%] [count: INV]:
if (_4 !=
