[Bug middle-end/107642] LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion

2022-11-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- At some point one of the ideas was to avoid deciding this "early" and leave it entirely to RTL expansion what to do to have more similar GIMPLE through the pipeline. That eventually means prefering if (a &

[Bug middle-end/107642] LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion

2022-11-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/107642] LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion

2022-11-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT has to be defined (if not already defined) in each file that uses it too. fold-const.cc:#ifndef LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT tree-ssa-ifcombine.cc:#ifndef LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CI

[Bug middle-end/107642] LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion

2022-11-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- A --param option was added in 2018 to override the setting of LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT : https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02604.html But the way it is implemented is such that the ov

[Bug middle-end/107642] LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT vs BRANCH_COST confusion

2022-11-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107642 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-11-11 Ever confirmed|0