On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > This is a rework of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html. > According to review comment, I extended the original patch and made it > covering last kind simplification of fold_cond_expr_with_comparison (Well, > this patch handles <, <=, > and >=. == will be handled by a follow up). > This patch also adds several tests, some tests are for existing > fold_cond_expr_with_comparison simplification but not covered yet; others are > for new extension. > Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64 along with following patches, is it > OK?
I think you don't need the explicit types in the result + (if (code == MAX_EXPR) + (convert (max @1 (convert:from_type @2))) + (if (code == MIN_EXPR) + (convert (min @1 (convert:from_type @2)))))))) A simple (convert (max @1 (convert @2))) should work. Otherwise ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > bin > > 2016-11-16 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * fold-const.c (fold_cond_expr_with_comparison): Move simplification > for A cmp C1 ? A : C2 to below, also simplify remaining code. > * match.pd: Move and extend simplification from above to here: > (cond (cmp (convert1? x) c1) (convert2? x) c2) -> (minmax (x c)). > * tree-if-conv.c (ifcvt_follow_ssa_use_edges): New func. > (predicate_scalar_phi): Call fold_stmt using the new valueize func. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > 2016-11-16 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/fold-cond_expr-1.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/fold-condcmpconv-1.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/fold-condcmpconv-2.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr66726.c: Adjust test strings.
