[Bug tree-optimization/111432] `bool & (a|1)` is not optimized to just `bool`

2023-10-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111432

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |14.0
 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Fixed.

[Bug tree-optimization/111432] `bool & (a|1)` is not optimized to just `bool`

2023-10-17 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111432

--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits  ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b18d1cabe2f90cad697e1e0bfd2abebb85f9

commit r14-4686-gb18d1cabe2f90cad697e1e0bfd2abebb85f9
Author: Andrew Pinski 
Date:   Fri Oct 13 13:27:18 2023 -0700

MATCH: [PR111432] Simplify `a & (x | CST)` to a when we know that (a &
~CST) == 0

This adds the simplification `a & (x | CST)` to a when we know that
`(a & ~CST) == 0`. In a similar fashion as `a & CST` is handle.

I looked into handling `a | (x & CST)` but that I don't see any decent
simplifications happening.

OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_linux-gnu with no regressions.

PR tree-optimization/111432

gcc/ChangeLog:

* match.pd (`a & (x | CST)`): New pattern.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitops-7.c: New test.

[Bug tree-optimization/111432] `bool & (a|1)` is not optimized to just `bool`

2023-10-13 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111432

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
   ||il/gcc-patches/2023-October
   ||/632988.html
   Keywords||patch

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632988.html

[Bug tree-optimization/111432] `bool & (a|1)` is not optimized to just `bool`

2023-10-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111432

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |pinskia at gcc dot 
gnu.org
   Last reconfirmed||2023-10-10
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
The reason why this is correct is:

a & (x | CST) -> (a & x) | (a & CST) -> // due to `a & CST -> a`
(a & x) | a -> a

So:
```
/* `a & (x | CST)` -> a if we know that (a & ~CST) == 0   */
(simplify
 (bit_and:c SSA_NAME@0 (bit_ior @1 INTEGER_CST@2))
 (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
  && wi::bit_and_not (get_nonzero_bits (@0), wi::to_wide (@2)) == 0)
  @0))
```

// a | (x & CST) simplifies down to `(a | x) & CST` but I don't see if that is
an improvement here as we still have 2 operations.