On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I'm testing a patch to fix both issues. Richard. > Richard. > >> >> -- >> Marc Glisse
