https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106164
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is the match.pd code:
(for bitop (bit_and bit_ior)
(for cmp (tcc_comparison)
(for ocmp (tcc_comparison)
(for ncmp (tcc_comparison)
(simplify
(bitop (cmp:c @0 @1) (ocmp @0 @1))
(with {
#if GIMPLE
location_t loc = UNKNOWN_LOCATION;
#endif
tree t = combine_comparisons (loc,
bitop == BIT_IOR_EXPR
? TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR : TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR,
cmp, ocmp,
type, @0, @1);
}
(switch
(if (GENERIC && t)
{t;})
(if (t && CONSTANT_CLASS_P (t))
{t;})
(if (t && TREE_CODE (t) == ncmp
/* Even though combine_comparisons should
return this, this is to double check. */
&& operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), @0)
&& operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1), @1))
(ncmp @0 @1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I am not a fan of it though, I think we should change combine_comparisons to
return the comparison code or true/false or error out.
The loc is due to combine_comparisons building the tree rather than match. The
same is true of the whole checking of the result. I am going to test this fully
and see if there is anything I need to change (there might be some testcases
which need to be "improved").
Also the whole ncmp for loop is still another issue which is a genmatch change
to allow a non-name to be there but that is so so much harder to fix and there
is already a case like that too.
