On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > maybe this would fit better in VRP, but it is easier (and not completely > useless) to put it in match.pd. > > Since the transformation is restricted to GIMPLE, I think I don't need to > check that @0 is SSA_NAME. I didn't test if @0 has pointer type before > calling get_range_info because we are doing bit_not on it, but it looks > like I should because we can do bitops on pointers?
I just noticed this was PR 52254 also :). I closed it as fixed after putting in a reference to the revision this was committed. Thanks, Andrew > > Adjustment for pr69270.c is exactly the same as in the previous patch from > today :-) > > Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. > > > 2016-05-16 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> > > gcc/ > * match.pd (~X & Y): New transformation. > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69270.c: Adjust. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/andnot-1.c: New testcase. > > > -- > Marc Glisse
