Hi, On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Kai Tietz wrote:
> That's not the hole story. The difference between TRUTH_(AND|OR)IF_EXPR > and TRUTH_(AND|OR)_EXPR are, that for TRUTH_(AND|OR)IF_EXPR gimplifier > creates a COND expression, but for TRUTH_(AND|OR)_EXPR it doesn't. Yes, of course. That is what implements the short-circuit semantics. But as Richard already mentioned I also don't understand why you do the reassociation at that point. Why not simply rewrite ANDIF -> AND (when possible, i.e. no sideeffects on arg1, and desirable, i.e. when LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT, and simple_operand(arg1)) and let other folders do reassociation? I ask because your comments states to transform: ((W AND X) ANDIF Y) ANDIF Z into (W AND X) ANDIF (Y AND Z) (under condition that Y and Z are simple operands). In fact you don't check the form of arg0,0, i.e. the "W AND X" here. Independend of that it doesn't make sense, because if Y and Z are easy (simple and no side-effects), then "Y AND Z" is too, and therefore you should transform this (if at all) into: (W AND X) AND (Y AND Z) at which point this association doesn't make sense anymore, as ((W AND X) AND Y) AND Z is just as fine. So, the reassociation looks fishy at best, better get rid of it? (which of the testcases breaks without it?) Ciao, Michael.
