Jakub spotted this wart in my last change. We have already tested
that we do not have 0 or 1 ops. So != 2 is more clearly written as > 2.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64. Committed to the trunk.
Jeff
commit 04acc76e9d46299f5251bf9f495d1b7688d7907f
Author: law <law@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Fri Oct 13 19:12:05 2017 +0000
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (reassociate_bb): Clarify code slighly.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@253740
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index b593718fa6f..56383ef72f0 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2017-10-13 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>
+
+ * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (reassociate_bb): Clarify code slighly.
+
2017-10-13 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR target/82274
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index cc57ae320a3..e0e64e16eba 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
@@ -5910,7 +5910,7 @@ reassociate_bb (basic_block bb)
move it to the front. This helps ensure that we generate
(X & Y) & C rather than (X & C) & Y. The former will
often match a canonical bit test when we get to RTL. */
- if (ops.length () != 2
+ if (ops.length () > 2
&& (rhs_code == BIT_AND_EXPR
|| rhs_code == BIT_IOR_EXPR
|| rhs_code == BIT_XOR_EXPR)
