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 [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B264E3858D1E for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:47:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B264E3858D1E 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=1663145253; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=AMvvJ37kan6NveZ4agXTkdEzCcnJmX4AW8nbUf8u+FQ=; b=Rlpy/hn45ryzxeqGIkREJTKhxiOhgzvKvrh0wvI6hs+ABU3FSvZgTDFA5NtiJEDLGUbiTe W04JxLjrSi9LLIW6PYOxOnUVle9ehQaoADm3DrRSsAQnfxgmthpI/aKkiol49Zpk85wt6H P0lqJLpYHlBv5Vj7dRl4yNibVRKNeJE= 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-428-wHXBTfobMlm-mukTWefYeA-1; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 04:47:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wHXBTfobMlm-mukTWefYeA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDDC8027FE; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA8E2028DC1; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:47:28 +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 28E8lQJ51975140 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:47:26 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 28E8lOW71975139; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:47:24 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:47:24 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disallow pointer operands for |, ^ and partly & [PR106878] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 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=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:58:47AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote: > > My change to match.pd (that added the two simplifications this patch > > touches) results in more |/^/& assignments with pointer arguments, > > but since r12-1608 we reject pointer operands for BIT_NOT_EXPR. > > > > Disallowing them for BIT_NOT_EXPR and allowing for BIT_{IOR,XOR,AND}_EXPR > > leads to a match.pd maintainance nightmare (see one of the patches in the > > PR), so either we want to allow pointer operand on BIT_NOT_EXPR (but then > > we run into issues e.g. with the ranger which expects it can emulate > > BIT_NOT_EXPR ~X as - 1 - X which doesn't work for pointers which don't > > support MINUS_EXPR), or the following patch disallows pointer arguments > > for all of BIT_{IOR,XOR,AND}_EXPR with the exception of BIT_AND_EXPR > > with INTEGER_CST last operand (for simpler pointer realignment). > > I had to tweak one reassoc optimization and the two match.pd > > simplifications. > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > OK. Thanks. > Did you check what breaks when we reverse the decision to allow > BIT_AND_EXPR to align pointers alltogether? I think we don't > have any > > (T')(((T)ptr) & CST) -> ptr & CST I haven't tried that, but can try that next. Would prefer a few days in between so if my current patch affects other arches it is reported. > I think for BIT_*_EXPR we want ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (well, likely > not complex int, but ...). So if a patch to check that passes > bootstrap that would be nice to have. And can try that as the third step then. Jakub