From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-410014-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 92570 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2015 12:50:43 -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 92534 invoked by uid 89); 13 Oct 2015 12:50:42 -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-f169.google.com
Received: from mail-yk0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f169.google.com) (209.85.160.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:50:41 +0000
Received: by ykfs79 with SMTP id s79so2638616ykf.2        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.125.6 with SMTP id y6mr23976166ywc.5.1444740639626; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.93.136 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1510131413240.2213@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>
References: <SN2PR0701MB10242B9E56933B072C29DE698E360@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<CAFiYyc0hiJX=Q6q9b4cNBnNXaKWKPkk3tb4gaBZr_m-gU9OjCA@mail.gmail.com>	<SN2PR0701MB10245F3B91BE5291AD40C1848E310@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<CAFiYyc12AuTFeiB5WkQEdzPf_3vSaQyV6UdWsXNSYP8H+91p_g@mail.gmail.com>	<SN2PR0701MB102426DA4DC98FDCB8428FB28E300@SN2PR0701MB1024.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<CAFiYyc3PEDejBG+3kyYoHm2W7tQKmDd+PSw58me4Zjieij2+fg@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1510131413240.2213@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:50:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc1yG0xPACvMMHn1oar+MgOE_qER3aFgZNr9KuDeaavoLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Move some bit and binary optimizations in simplify and match
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: "Hurugalawadi, Naveen" <Naveen.Hurugalawadi@caviumnetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01235.txt.bz2

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> +/* Simplify ~X & X as zero.  */
>> +(simplify
>> + (bit_and:c (convert? @0) (convert? (bit_not @0)))
>> +  (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>
>
> The test seems unnecessary for this specific transformation.
>
>> +  { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); }))
>
>
> I'd rather build_zero_cst (type) directly.
>
>> +/* (-A) * (-B) -> A * B  */
>> +(simplify
>> + (mult:c (convert? (negate @0)) (convert? negate_expr_p@1))
>> +  (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (@0)))
>> +   (mult (convert @0) (convert (negate @1)))))
>>
>> this one is ok with using convert1? and convert2?
>
>
> Is it? Maybe if it also checked tree_nop_conversion_p for @1...

Sorry, your comments are of course correct.  Neveen, please adjust
also according
to these comments.

Richard.

> --
> Marc Glisse