On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
+/* Simplify ~X & X as zero. */
+(simplify
+ (bit_and:c (convert? @0) (convert? (bit_not @0)))
+ (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
The test seems unnecessary for this specific transformation.
+ { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); }))
I'd rather build_zero_cst (type) directly.
+/* (-A) * (-B) -> A * B */
+(simplify
+ (mult:c (convert? (negate @0)) (convert? negate_expr_p@1))
+ (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
+ (mult (convert @0) (convert (negate @1)))))
this one is ok with using convert1? and convert2?
Is it? Maybe if it also checked tree_nop_conversion_p for @1...
--
Marc Glisse
