https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5e69e94591ae282857d59e868ff6cea7306c802
commit r14-4965-ga5e69e94591ae282857d59e868ff6cea7306c802
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just an FYI the corrected and full version (which I will be submitting later
today or tomorrow morning) is:
/*
U & N <= U -> true
U & N > U -> false
U needs to be non-negative.
U | N < U ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the test in the end should be:
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)) && tree_expr_nonnegative_p (@0)
as it does not matter if @1 has the sign bit set or not. since nonzero & XYZ is
still nonzero and in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
We could use tree_expr_nonnegative_p here .
Though I noticed that tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p could be improved to use
nonzerobits if it is there to speed up things ...
I will handle that part seperate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
We should also handle:
int foo(int len, int N) {
len &= 0x;
N &= 0xff;
int newlen = len & ~N;
return newlen <= len;
}
That is
(TREE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (@0))
|| (signbi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> U | N < U -> false
> U & N <= U -> true
> U & N > U -> false
> U | N >= U -> true
>
> >I don't see an easy way to combine these two patterns though.
> I totally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
U | N < U -> false
U & N <= U -> true
U & N > U -> false
U | N >= U -> true
>I don't see an easy way to combine these two patterns though.
I totally missed that the for loop is a pair for.
(for cmp (lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > it doesn't even have to be -N, any unsigned & N <= unsigned
>
> Here are the ones which are valid:
>
> U | N <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-27
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101590
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
it doesn't even have to be -N, any unsigned & N <= unsigned
11 matches
Mail list logo
