On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:35 PM Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > I noticed quite ugly code from both testcases. This transformation does > not fix either, but it helps a bit.
I'm curious why you chose to restrict to INTEGER_CST A and B? Is that because of the case when (X / [ex] A) +- B evaluates to zero but A * B overflows? Can that ever happen? Isn't it enough to know that A isn't -1? That is, can we use expr_not_equal_to or friends to put constraints on possibly non-constant A/B? Otherwise the patch is of course OK and the above would just improve it. Thanks, Richard. > bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. > > 2018-09-30 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> > > gcc/ > * match.pd (((X /[ex] A) +- B) * A): New transformation. > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/muldiv-1.c: New file. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/muldiv-2.c: Likewise. > > -- > Marc Glisse
