From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C10913856DC0 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:54:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C10913856DC0 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666371279; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=DUU5nue7fkoam2NDLjTUcPQbDATpcLKCDeXGk27/n8I=; b=UL2kS/Ha922G/v7DnSiO1c9FrNsjVlNPBoZbmGqbOZrrIIwkoqyiWqAcrNSDOib7uTth2U jxOo/SYucAfGgwMnKYKMTiNmFcKdVULrkntt74SChlCrwjgejLXpeP+7QnzDPuXBEzGRCk UfUm6aEq0/Ci5CWSYy30yzr4fC7MZ5Q= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-47-zdR9J5JJOFW3nmy6Fn_CgQ-1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:54:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zdR9J5JJOFW3nmy6Fn_CgQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C98E833AED; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.252]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19522166B2C; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 29LGsXX13544754 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:54:33 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 29LGsWp23544753; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:54:32 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:54:32 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Segher Boessenkool , Aldy Hernandez , GCC patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename nonzero_bits to known_zero_bits. Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20221021131426.308205-1-aldyh@redhat.com> <20221021164533.GW25951@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 06:51:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Agreed. > > I think maybe_nonzero_bits would be fine. Or yet another option is to change what we track and instead of having just one bitmask have 2 as tree-ssa-ccp.cc does, one bitmask says which bits are known to be always the same and the other which specifies the values of those bits. "For X with a CONSTANT lattice value X & ~mask == value & ~mask. The zero bits in the mask cover constant values. The ones mean no information." Jakub