On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:02 PM Andrew Pinski (QUIC) <quic_apin...@quicinc.com> wrote: > > While looking into PR 114666, I noticed that we don't verify COND_EXPR's > first operand. In most of my recent patches to match.pd, I was assuming that > it would be a boolean (or a type which would contain > [0,1]) but this PR shows we could end up with an 1-bit signed integer in > there.
Yeah, I guess we never had verification for is_gimple_val operands in there. I think we want a boolean there, anything that's valid as a scalar result of a tcc_comparison. Note that there we do allow a signed 1-bit result ... > We could fix most of the match patterns which assume we would get a boolean > like type or we could fix the patterns which would create this. > Both are not hard to do but it would be useful for GCC 15 at least to add a > verifier if we decide the type should not be a signed 1bit integer. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > PS sorry about the duplicated emails, I had a typo in the email address.
