From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-411423-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 57019 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2015 09:27:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 57009 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2015 09:26:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f181.google.com
Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f181.google.com) (209.85.160.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:26:57 +0000
Received: by ykba4 with SMTP id a4so171232994ykb.3        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.13.215 with SMTP id 206mr27537830ywn.280.1445851615611; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.117.136 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1510242310330.2173@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>
References: <SN2PR0701MB10242B9E56933B072C29DE698E360@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1510141334440.2509@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<SN2PR0701MB1024DCB71D27D1879DE3A7C48E3E0@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<CAFiYyc17b4BO5GDVxodzNfoztV0Gvdy6pdpJfW2dR+8xh0aK1Q@mail.gmail.com>	<SN2PR0701MB10241785BE597A8D3D648B8C8E3D0@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1510161238370.7951@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<SN2PR0701MB1024F6EA47AF604FFDAF58258E3A0@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1510191323001.11872@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<SN2PR0701MB1024B0A9DCDCA6C3F71885518E390@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<CAFiYyc0POhSbGVcAXAzE3ka5PtfQALfAJZBJnYkVwZ3KBq+19w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc2XZfLKBRJj1ynpRgVpiWj6fMhp9s1YRJAASSaYe=-GYA@mail.gmail.com>	<SN2PR0701MB102493AB9A401CC25D600B478E260@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1510242310330.2173@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc0DxjhN5+uvyUafedCEFi5OybwJgtoHWUeMB53x=K3z2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Move some bit and binary optimizations in simplify and match
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
Cc: "Hurugalawadi, Naveen" <Naveen.Hurugalawadi@caviumnetworks.com>, 	"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg02644.txt.bz2

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
>
> + (minus (bit_and:cs @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:s @0 @1))
>
> I am not sure why we have :c on one bit_and but not the other.

Clearly an omission.

> + (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1))
>
> Here on the other hand, I believe the :c on bit_ior is redundant.

Yes.  It's somewhat twisty ;)  I wonder why it doesn't get you a genmatch
warning for duplicate patterns though.  A it does:

test.pd:2:3 warning: duplicate pattern
 (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1))
  ^
test.pd:2:3 warning: previous pattern defined here
 (bit_ior:c (bit_and:c @0 (bit_not @1)) (bit_and:c (bit_not @0) @1))
  ^
(BIT_IOR_EXPR (BIT_AND_EXPR (BIT_NOT_EXPR @0) @1) (BIT_AND_EXPR @0
(BIT_NOT_EXPR @1)))

so please watch out for them when building.

Richard.

>
> --
> Marc Glisse