integer_onep vs. signed 1-bit bitfields

[Richard Sandiford]

What should integer_onep mean if we have a signed 1-bit bitfield in
which the bit is set?  Seen as a 1-bit value it's "obviously" 1,
but seen as a value extended to infinite precision it's -1.

Current mainline returns false while wide-int returns true.

This came up in gcc.c-torture/execute/930718-1.c, compiled at -O2.
Before phiopt we have:

  <unnamed-signed:1> foo$f2;
  ...
  _8 = _7 & 3;
  if (_8 != 0)
    goto <bb 4>;
  else
    goto <bb 3>;

  <bb 3>:

  <bb 4>:
  # foo$f2_10 = PHI <0(2), -1(3)>
  foo.f2 = foo$f2_10;

On mainline that becomes:

  _8 = _7 & 3;
  _3 = _8 == 0;
  _2 = (<unnamed-signed:1>) _3;
  _13 = -_2;
  ...
  foo.f2 = _13;

while on wide-int we avoid the redundant negation:

  _3 = _8 == 0;
  _2 = (<unnamed-signed:1>) _3;
  ...
  foo.f2 = _2;

On some targets this difference persists until final and we get much
better code on wide-int.

So in this case the wide-int behaviour looks better, but I wanted to
check whether there were likely to be downsides.

FWIW, the phiopt code is:

  /* The PHI arguments have the constants 0 and 1, or 0 and -1, then
     convert it to the conditional.  */
  if ((integer_zerop (arg0) && integer_onep (arg1))
      || (integer_zerop (arg1) && integer_onep (arg0)))
    neg = false;
  else if ((integer_zerop (arg0) && integer_all_onesp (arg1))
           || (integer_zerop (arg1) && integer_all_onesp (arg0)))
    neg = true;
  else
    return false;

Thanks,
Richard