https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
A few testcases that have not been added to the testsuite yet.
Note it takes f1 to phiopt2 to optimize that because there is an extra
statement left behind because match does not deal with `(signed)a < 0` y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The only thing left to do to remove minmax_replacement, is the improvement
mentioned in PR 95699 (or rather r11-1504-g2e0f4a18bc978c7362 ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55018
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55018&action=edit
Patch which implements the != part
This is the patch which I am testing for the != part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> After https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/617758.html, these
> are testcases that fail if we remove minmax_replacement :
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Part of this is in the patch set in bug 25290 comment # 27 patch set. Mostly
the "c ? min/max : min/max" part, I still need to implement the "c ? min : d"
part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> You will notice this is not caught by phiopt1 even though it should be while
> it is caught now (on the trunk) by phiopt2 (match-and-simplify). That is
> the mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-20.c is another case which is missing right now, it
deals with EQ_EXPR/NE_EXPR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a start but there are a few patterns that need to be moved.
An example is from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr66726-4.c:
#define SAT(x) (x < 0 ? 0 : (x > 255 ? 255 : x))
void
foo (unsigned char *p, int i)
{
*p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-11
Assignee|unassigne
11 matches
Mail list logo
