From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1AEA3858D39 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 05:37:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A1AEA3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A1AEA3858D39 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::130 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712727442; cv=none; b=dYZxh6sYYnv8q9tH0ta6+iucNl3UXTnGaJFCzRIjfiIq9tIAisC36DNS4fX3HcRnLQD7s1eXH5z1eEYtWk5tLQr1fgGhFvAxw66d/TFCgW7Im24a9ZKOCyq9ZxcqNZe7xq+R7DRG3FLMdH0aBiA/A64y8V5hL0VST2vEEE/ys9Q= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712727442; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VfhWfsQCeShQSb4QMzsPqIdt+FNF0WYAWoEJRauWAt4=; h=DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To; b=tSb5jvKK6AZBo14VTvoSF9oZRyBeLEzj44r0zXU5HuiBcmINVRgBiwvu5Rb9pRCTnv2JR4r2fhc1QXq3MWQXl1JGBQXzH1Vsvyw+wSF/h6cG4lfLAhtFi1Vw5kDPydKV1sa+1d6SNTy3rb4cd8v8J+i30hqFTGDdVcgncKadhps= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-516d487659bso6602755e87.2 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 22:37:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712727439; x=1713332239; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=JWKGDmBL6qJXt6PwL4BKgeLZox4pr88fPDsDwgT3X9c=; b=SbZR7W7qbk97RpWIxvApzE73dJ8n1/KXN9nPDj22yrmIBdt5FE6GeLctEuV8cTWpna 0aTXO+jH7/NTr8hZXEyDsjMrM1NTb6TnecwVoYs1wbsKx74OuHucTPIrBym6guRv81eq gcyvNmcEgzWiPww8oe72POv1pEz0f2FuEMIbIKN8zo/rViN2XriLiC7P93buedzcW67+ pzloKuWiEEYFCJlRTWAhUddjf+vAMvJH0Huytf4sAk6DaLVHn0Q/TPT4/gZniL1gmrso v0fPtfMST1OWXUG2KTpNubEySurnNL/k6Gxqy1MyY9U9HwpVcXcbmSygutBc3DhfktTm NtiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712727439; x=1713332239; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JWKGDmBL6qJXt6PwL4BKgeLZox4pr88fPDsDwgT3X9c=; b=DB2X3q3QEvARqEXeS2CliMzxfPxzn1iW1FUpg+jx5PpDSqY0r7bj+Lj2JU5ybkZcxz S9xDnjrMeNOc3xStGES9lfpmSk8in4I/Z8cv98BoRmk8n5epbv3p/Gk7O+wKKW5Dl+3L hYKI3eihUeRQ4Us0fpuDk1jN/V8OwgxJymTzSn2yisn9B0NnA9sfZsOY/Am0qBTqADTP 2cl6VKHn5pvZdb5ENA4OTp9Ch64h4kyqJG3ewhtr7K054or0w+KQn09PY8cuZnWDaPgK 1yjWU8Zpeb7cSOvMJJF7PacArGH0KIIIHiI6d8Xqvf6Cv481mRKEsykAXSnUrGAOGoM1 4/Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxrT3BfoEqiOFskQj0V7ol5NgQcqTt4zbqpCWO939wStGD2Z1BG 2RVypxPjf1lQlGeTmC4uqM/cFfqarsHvG5sFY7LPmc6dd3yz/1XAzkXBERhQL5hRi3lb0GfPYDl MDkQkoOyFWmtcoZEwiWEB7QlDSkc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHvy3MaHmfm0yy22MwpK98lmCKCVyFC8ZByCDeiMSIuLBf61qeiOf00EO6PSoy6hu44MNZND7LP15zGJ7YGCd0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:39d3:b0:516:b148:6d8 with SMTP id k19-20020a05651239d300b00516b14806d8mr800439lfu.50.1712727438735; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 22:37:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:37:07 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: COND_EXPR (?:) and its first operand in gimple To: "Andrew Pinski (QUIC)" Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:02=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Pinski (QUIC) wrote: > > While looking into PR 114666, I noticed that we don't verify COND_EXPR's = first operand. In most of my recent patches to match.pd, I was assuming tha= t it would be a boolean (or a type which would contain > [0,1]) but this PR shows we could end up with an 1-bit signed integer in = there. Yeah, I guess we never had verification for is_gimple_val operands in there. I think we want a boolean there, anything that's valid as a scalar result of a tcc_comparison. Note that there we do allow a signed 1-bit result ... > We could fix most of the match patterns which assume we would get a boole= an like type or we could fix the patterns which would create this. > Both are not hard to do but it would be useful for GCC 15 at least to add= a verifier if we decide the type should not be a signed 1bit integer. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > PS sorry about the duplicated emails, I had a typo in the email address.