On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Avinash Jayakar wrote: > On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 13:01 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Avinash Jayakar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 11:21 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:53 AM Avinash Jayakar > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether match.pd matches with (cond^ ...) similar to > > > > the saturating arithmetic patterns can be used to make the > > > > matchings > > > > more maintainable? > > > > > > > Initially I tried to write simplify pattern in match.pd, that would > > > recognize a >= b ? (a > b) : -1 to a == b? 0 : (a < b) -1: 1. Which > > > enabled optimize_spaceship method. It did work when source was > > > written > > > with ternary operator. > > > But one problem was that if source is written with if-else instead > > > of > > > ternary, it did not work. > > > if (a >= b) return (a > b) else return -1; > > > > I was suggesting a > > > > (match (spaceship_lt_gt @0 @1 ...) > > (...)) > > > > and to call that from the optimize_spaceship function. > Sure, I will try this. > For the test cases, is it ok to add a check_effective_target_spaceship > in target-supports.exp?
Sure. > > > > Richard. > -- Richard Biener <[email protected]> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Jochen Jaser, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
