Hello,
maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely
useless) to put it in match.pd.
Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need to
check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if @0 has pointer type before
calling get_range_info because we a
On 05/13/2016 01:07 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely
useless) to put it in match.pd.
Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need
to check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if @0 has pointer type
be
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
Please use if (GIMPLE
&& ((get_nonzero_bits ...)
Rather than #if GIMPLE
Richard asked for the reverse in some previous patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01617.html
I don't really care which one we settle on...
--
Marc Glisse
On 05/16/2016 04:31 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
Please use if (GIMPLE
&& ((get_nonzero_bits ...)
Rather than #if GIMPLE
Richard asked for the reverse in some previous patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01617.html
I don't really care w
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely
> useless) to put it in match.pd.
>
> Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need to
> check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if @0
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely
> useless) to put it in match.pd.
>
> Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need to
> check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if
