From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17413 invoked by alias); 1 May 2015 18:57:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17403 invoked by uid 89); 1 May 2015 18:57:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 01 May 2015 18:57:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t41Ivk8L001619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 May 2015 14:57:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-143.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.143]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t41IvjAe026331; Fri, 1 May 2015 14:57:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5543CCA9.30203@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 18:57:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Biener , GCC Patches Subject: Re: More type narrowing in match.pd References: <5541A704.3070502@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On 04/30/2015 05:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> I have in my local dev tree (so completely untested...) >>> >>> @@ -1040,31 +1052,22 @@ (define_operator_list CBRT BUILT_IN_CBRT >>> operation and convert the result to the desired type. */ >>> (for op (plus minus) >>> (simplify >>> - (convert (op (convert@2 @0) (convert@3 @1))) >>> + (convert (op:c@4 (convert@2 @0) (convert?@3 @1))) >> >> >> I believe the :c here requires extra code further down, so we don't turn a-b >> into b-a. > > Indeed. I've added :c only for minus as 5 - x can't be canonicalized to > move the constant to 2nd position which is always possible for plus. > > Might be cleaner to add a separate pattern for that case. FWIW, this is the patch that's attached to 65084 (not 47477 as I initially reported). It's supposed to address one or more of the example loops in that testcase. I'd like to tackle it as a follow-up. jeff