On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:58:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > +/* 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. > > > > For the vectorizer it likely would break the larger logical type > > handling? > > Why? It is the same thing as the earlier macro above. > Any kind of boolean, plus anything that could be initially boolean > and the middle-end might have replaced it with.
boolean_type_node is QImode but logical(8) is DImode for example. Both have precision == 1 but they are not types_compatible_p (you probably missed the mode check in useless_type_conversion_p). > > The question is really what the vectorizer and other places are looking > > for -- which isually is a 1-bit precision, eventually unsigned, > > integral type. > > It is looking for any type where the only valid values are 0 (false) and 1 > (true), so that it can actually vectorize it as a bitmask, or vector of > integers with -1 and 0 values. That's INTEGRAL_TYPE_P && TYPE_PRECISION == 1 && TYPE_UNSIGNED. The Ada types do not fall under this category as far as I understand as the exceptional values may exist in memory(?) Richard.
