On 02/01/2017 01:21 AM, 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).
And my suggestion is to move the PRECISION/UNSIGNED checks so that
they're tested for BOOLEAN_TYPEs as well.
As of useless_type_conversion_p, I don't remember why we have
/* Preserve conversions to/from BOOLEAN_TYPE if types are not
of precision one. */
if (((TREE_CODE (inner_type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
!= (TREE_CODE (outer_type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE))
&& TYPE_PRECISION (outer_type) != 1)
return false;
it came with r173854 where you see other BOOLEAN_TYPE
-> integral-type with precision 1 check changes, so a new predicate
is very welcome IMHO.
Funny, it's your change ;-) Looks like Kai added a gimple checker that
verified that the operand of a TRUTH_NOT_EXPR must be compatible with
boolean_type_node.
That check tripped (bz48989) on some Fortran code. Your fix seems to
imply that the Fortran front-end created non-1-precision BOOLEAN_TYPE
object.
all BOOLEAN_TYPEs but Adas have precision one and are unsigned
(their TYPE_SIZE may vary though). Adas larger precision boolean
has only two valid values but needs to be able to encode some 'NaT'
state.
I think BOOLEAN_COMPATIBLE_TYPE_P would be misleading as it isn't
equal to types_compatible_p (boolean_type_node, t).
Maybe we want TWO_VALUED_UNSIGNED_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P ()? (ick)
I thought "BOOLEAN" covers TWO_VALUED_UNSIGNED well enough but
simply BOOLEAN_TYPE_P is easily confused with TREE_CODE () ==
BOOLEAN_TYPE.
I'm fine with changing the predicate to be more explicit, like
#define INTEGRAL_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P(TYPE) \
(INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TYPE) && TYPE_PRECISION (TYPE) == 1)
not sure if we really need the TYPE_UNSIGNED check? The middle-end
has various places that just check for a 1-precision type when
asking for a boolean context.
So naming set aside, would you agree with the above definition?
(modulo a && TYPE_UNSIGNED (TYPE))?
I could agree to that. Alternately, we could restore the TYPE_PRECISION
checks that Jakub removed in the vectorizer.
Jeff
