[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- .
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Fixed for GCC 10 by the same patch which fixed PR 87954 .
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Mine.
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Gabriel Ravier changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gabravier at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 from Gabriel Ravier --- Looks like it is now indeed optimized to a boolean and, at least on the latest trunk I could test...
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> /* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */
> (for cmp (gt lt ge le)
> (simplify
> (mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2)
> (cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst (type); })))
>
>
> Should have caught that ...
We do get:
_1 = c_5(D) < d_6(D);
_2 = (int) _1;
_7 = a_3(D) < b_4(D) ? _2 : 0;
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */
(for cmp (gt lt ge le)
(simplify
(mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2)
(cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst (type); })))
Should have caught that ...
NOTE I think that might have been broken for floating point
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- In this case, the code was deliberately written this way, presumably to avoid the branching in &&. Using & would be better (and that's what I am suggesting we optimize it to), but * doesn't seem nonsensical to me. (we can still add a warning if you want) PR 45780 seems to be about something completely different, and the code here would not trigger the warning requested there (the result is the same if we replace bool by int everywhere).
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- Hum, perhaps we should warn about such nonsense code, as suggested in PR45780: warning: arithmetic applied to boolean expression return (a
[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-04-05 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed.
