Re: [PATCH 17/12] _BitInt a ? ~b : b match.pd fix [PR102989]

2023-09-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 03:07:15PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Note I notice another all to build_nonstandard_integer_type in this > match pattern which might also need to be fixed: > /* For (x << c) >> c, optimize into x & ((unsigned)-1 >> c) for >unsigned x OR truncate into the

Re: [PATCH 17/12] _BitInt a ? ~b : b match.pd fix [PR102989]

2023-09-05 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:51 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 02:27:10PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > I admit it isn't really clear to me what do you want to achieve by the > > > above build_nonstandard_integer_type. Is it because of BOOLEAN_TYPE > > > or perhaps

Re: [PATCH 17/12] _BitInt a ? ~b : b match.pd fix [PR102989]

2023-09-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 02:27:10PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > I admit it isn't really clear to me what do you want to achieve by the > > above build_nonstandard_integer_type. Is it because of BOOLEAN_TYPE > > or perhaps ENUMERAL_TYPE as well? > > Yes I was worried about types where the

Re: [PATCH 17/12] _BitInt a ? ~b : b match.pd fix [PR102989]

2023-09-05 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:28 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 12:19:54PM -0700, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR tree-optimization/110937 > > PR tree-optimization/100798 > > --- a/gcc/match.pd > > +++ b/gcc/match.pd > > @@ -6460,6 +6460,20

[PATCH 17/12] _BitInt a ? ~b : b match.pd fix [PR102989]

2023-09-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 12:19:54PM -0700, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: > PR tree-optimization/110937 > PR tree-optimization/100798 > --- a/gcc/match.pd > +++ b/gcc/match.pd > @@ -6460,6 +6460,20 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) >(if (cmp == NE_EXPR) > {