On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:21:57AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Not sure I understand what you mean explicitly check the precision,
> > the macro checks the precision already, and intentionally only for
> > non-BOOLEAN_TYPE. If you mean checking precision explicitly in the spots
> > where the macro is used, that would be worse for the hypothetical case when
> > u_t_c would change in this regard, you'd have far more places to change.
> > As for macro name, I came up e.g. with BOOLEAN_COMPATIBLE_P or
> > BOOLEAN_COMPATIBLE_TYPE_P, perhaps those could make it clearer on what it
> > is.
>
> +/* Nonzero if TYPE represents a (scalar) boolean type or type
> + in the middle-end compatible with it. */
> +
> +#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \
> + (TREE_CODE (TYPE) == BOOLEAN_TYPE \
> + || ((TREE_CODE (TYPE) == INTEGER_TYPE \
> + || TREE_CODE (TYPE) == ENUMERAL_TYPE) \
> + && TYPE_PRECISION (TYPE) == 1 \
> + && TYPE_UNSIGNED (TYPE)))
>
> (just to quote what you proposed).
So would it help to use
(TREE_CODE (TYPE) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
|| (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TYPE)
&& useless_type_conversion_p (boolean_type_node, TYPE)))
It would be much slower than the above, but would be less dependent
on useless_type_conversion_p details.
Jakub
