On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 09:32 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:09 PM Naveen Hurugalawadi
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patch and sharing your comments.
> >
> > > > nop_convert4 cannot happen, constants will have been constant folded
> >
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:09 PM Naveen Hurugalawadi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch and sharing your comments.
>
> >> nop_convert4 cannot happen, constants will have been constant folded here.
> Removed.
>
> >> So I think it should be and the other patterns adjusted accordingly.
Hi,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and sharing your comments.
>> nop_convert4 cannot happen, constants will have been constant folded here.
Removed.
>> So I think it should be and the other patterns adjusted accordingly.
Modified the remaining patterns accordingly.
Please find attached the
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:09 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > (if (!TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED (type) && !TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS (type)
> > && !TYPE_SATURATING (type)
>
> Would the positive form
> TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type) ||
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
(if (!TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED (type) && !TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS (type)
&& !TYPE_SATURATING (type)
Would the positive form
TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type) || TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (type)
be roughly equivalent and shorter? Or am I missing
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:36 PM Naveen Hurugalawadi wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch and sharing your comments.
>
> >> pattern should be guarded with !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED
> >> and/or !TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS
> Done.
>
> >> can you add some cases with unsigned types and
Hi Richard,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and sharing your comments.
>> pattern should be guarded with !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED
>> and/or !TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS
Done.
>> can you add some cases with unsigned types and types
>> smaller than int (thus with integral promotion applied)?
Done.
Please
