https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77826
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> --- gcc/genmatch.c (revision 240739)
> +++ gcc/genmatch.c (working copy)
> @@ -2593,8 +2601,10 @@ dt_operand::gen_match_op (FILE *f, int i
> {
> char match_opname[20];
> match_dop->get_name (match_opname);
> - fprintf_indent (f, indent, "if (%s == %s || operand_equal_p (%s, %s,
> 0))\n",
> - opname, match_opname, opname, match_opname);
> + fprintf_indent (f, indent, "if (%s == %s || (operand_equal_p (%s, %s, 0) "
> + "&& types_match (%s, %s)))\n",
> + opname, match_opname, opname, match_opname,
> + opname, match_opname);
> fprintf_indent (f, indent + 2, "{\n");
> return 1;
> }
But that will mean the pattern will no longer match. While it is generally
safer, for the cases like this simplify, shall it then use (convert? @2)
instead and add operand_equal_p for @0 and @2? I guess all it cares is that @0
actually has the same type as @1 there, not a different one?
