On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: > > + (minus (bit_and:cs @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:s @0 @1)) > > I am not sure why we have :c on one bit_and but not the other.
Clearly an omission. > + (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1)) > > Here on the other hand, I believe the :c on bit_ior is redundant. Yes. It's somewhat twisty ;) I wonder why it doesn't get you a genmatch warning for duplicate patterns though. A it does: test.pd:2:3 warning: duplicate pattern (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1)) ^ test.pd:2:3 warning: previous pattern defined here (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1)) ^ (BIT_IOR_EXPR (BIT_AND_EXPR (BIT_NOT_EXPR @0) @1) (BIT_AND_EXPR @0 (BIT_NOT_EXPR @1))) so please watch out for them when building. Richard. > > -- > Marc Glisse
