https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95906
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For the scalar we have:
_1 = a_5(D) > b_6(D);
_9 = _2 + -1;
_4 = b_6(D) & _9;
Where _2 is zero_one_valued_p.
So we could match that:
/* ((m1 CMP m2) + -1) & d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? 0 : d */
(simplify
(bit_and:c (plus (convert (cmp@0 @1 @2)) integer_minus_onep) @3)
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
&& INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
(cond @0 { build_zero_cst (type); } @3)))
Like we do already for `(-(m1 CMP m2)) & d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0`.
This should get us:
_3 = _1 ? a_5(D) : 0;
_4 = _1 ? 0 : b_6(D);
_7 = _3 | _4;
Which then can be reduced to:
_7 = _1 ? a_5(D) : b_6(D)
via (maybe a new pattern):
(simplify
(bit_ior:c
(cond @0 @1 integer_zerop)
(cond @0 integer_zerop @2))
(cond @0 @1 @2))
Which then will match.
Let me see if I can implement the above.
