On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:48 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
> > be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
> > signed 1 bit integers.
> > This changes that not to match that and fixes the 2 new testcases at
> > all optimization levels.
> >
> > OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>
> OK.
Note, this means it won't return true for zero INTEGER_CSTs with
signed 1-bit precision type. Such value is in the [0, 1] range.
Though, I guess signed 1-bit precision types are so rare and problematic
that it doesn't hurt not to optimize that.
Jakub
