On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > 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.
It used to override boolean_type_node which AFAIK it no longer does. > > > > > 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. Yeah, I guess at this point I prefer a vectorizer-local fix. Richard.
