[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2023-02-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2023-02-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a42ed1d9181d21d5cb02f131f641c0cf375eca9d commit r13-5988-ga42ed1d9181d21d5cb02f131f641c0cf375eca9d Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2023-01-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > So something like: > (simplify > (minus integer_one@0 SSA_NAME@1) > (if (TREE_CODE (@0) == SSA_NAME > && ssa_name_has_boolean_range (@0)) > (bit_xor @1

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-08-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > Hmm, thinking about expanding this further: > > I am going to handle the non-special (bool) case as PR 101610.

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Hmm, thinking about expanding this further: I am going to handle the non-special (bool) case as PR 101610.

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- The final conversion should happen at the RTL level (or during expansion). simplify-rtx.c has this: /* If STORE_FLAG_VALUE is 1, (minus 1 (comparison foo bar)) can be done by reversing the

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Hmm, thinking about expanding this further: Even further. int f1(int n) { if (n&~8) __builtin_unreachable(); return 63 - n; } CUT So the

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm, thinking about expanding this further: int f1(int n) { if (n&~63) __builtin_unreachable(); return 63 - n; } int f2(int n) { if (n&~63) __builtin_unreachable(); return 63 ^ n; } These

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-07-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean not patterns

2021-01-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96921 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1