Hi,
On 29.11.19 13:51, Harwath, Frederik wrote:
>> condition for the inner vec_cond. Your fix looks reasonable but is
>> very badly formatted. Can you instead do
I hope the formatting looks better now. I have also removed the [amdgcn] from
the subject line since
the fact that this has been discovered in the context of amdgcn is not really
essential.
Best regards,
Frederik
2019-11-29 Frederik Harwath <frede...@codesourcery.com>
gcc/
* gimple-match-head.c (maybe_resimplify_conditional_op): use
generic_expr_could_trap_p to check if the condition of COND_EXPR or
VEC_COND_EXPR can trap.
---
gcc/gimple-match-head.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-match-head.c b/gcc/gimple-match-head.c
index 2996bade301..c763a80a6d1 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-match-head.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-match-head.c
@@ -144,9 +144,21 @@ maybe_resimplify_conditional_op (gimple_seq *seq,
gimple_match_op *res_op,
/* Likewise if the operation would not trap. */
bool honor_trapv = (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (res_op->type)
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS (res_op->type));
- if (!operation_could_trap_p ((tree_code) res_op->code,
- FLOAT_TYPE_P (res_op->type),
- honor_trapv, res_op->op_or_null (1)))
+ tree_code op_code = (tree_code) res_op->code;
+ bool op_could_trap;
+
+ /* COND_EXPR and VEC_COND_EXPR will trap if, and only if, the condition
+ traps and hence we have to check this. For all other operations, we
+ don't need to consider the operands. */
+ if (op_code == COND_EXPR || op_code == VEC_COND_EXPR)
+ op_could_trap = generic_expr_could_trap_p (res_op->ops[0]);
+ else
+ op_could_trap = operation_could_trap_p ((tree_code) res_op->code,
+ FLOAT_TYPE_P (res_op->type),
+ honor_trapv,
+ res_op->op_or_null (1));
+
+ if (!op_could_trap)
{
res_op->cond.cond = NULL_TREE;
return false;
--
2.17.1
