On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:52 PM Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:20 PM MCC CS <mc...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I have updated the testcase and run "make check" on Ubuntu x86_64. > >> All of them passed. (However the last part "do-check" couldn't be > >> run, probably due to a missing testsuite dependency?) > >> > >> The match.pd is the same as the original patch, and I have > >> updated change-summaries and improved tests. > >> > >> 2018-08-21 MCC CS <deswurs...@users.noreply.github.com> > >> > >> gcc/ > >> PR tree-optimization/87009 > >> * match.pd: Add boolean optimizations. > >> > >> 2018-08-21 MCC CS <deswurs...@users.noreply.github.com> > >> > >> gcc/testsuite/ > >> PR tree-optimization/87009 > >> * gcc.dg/pr87009.c: New test. > >> > >> Index: gcc/match.pd > >> =================================================================== > >> --- gcc/match.pd (revision 263646) > >> +++ gcc/match.pd (working copy) > >> @@ -776,6 +776,11 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) > >> (bit_not (bit_and:cs (bit_not @0) @1)) > >> (bit_ior @0 (bit_not @1))) > >> > >> +/* ~(~a | b) --> a & ~b */ > >> +(simplify > >> + (bit_not (bit_ior:cs (bit_not @0) @1)) > >> + (bit_and @0 (bit_not @1))) > >> + > >> /* Simplify (~X & Y) to X ^ Y if we know that (X & ~Y) is 0. */ > >> #if GIMPLE > >> (simplify > >> @@ -981,6 +986,16 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) > >> (bit_and:c (bit_ior:c @0 @1) (bit_xor:c @1 (bit_not @0))) > >> (bit_and @0 @1)) > >> > >> +/* (~x | y) & (x | ~y) -> ~(x ^ y) */ > >> +(simplify > >> + (bit_and (bit_ior:c (bit_not @0) @1) (bit_ior:c @0 (bit_not @1))) > > > > Please add single-use markers after the existing 'c' markers of the > > bit_ior's > > > >> + (bit_not (bit_xor @0 @1))) > >> + > >> +/* (~x | y) ^ (x | ~y) -> x ^ y */ > >> +(simplify > >> + (bit_xor (bit_ior:c (bit_not @0) @1) (bit_ior:c @0 (bit_not @1))) > >> + (bit_xor @0 @1)) > > > > Likewise. > > Wouldn't :s be ignored here, since there is a single instruction in the > output?
Yes, indeed. Not in the first pattern though. I guess it's only not profitable if both iors are re-used though. Richard. > > -- > Marc Glisse
