On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: > > > Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a > > separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would > > break, the folding of x * -1 ? > > 2013-04-05 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> > > * tree.c (integer_all_onesp) <COMPLEX_CST>: Test that both > components are all 1s. > (integer_minus_onep): New function. > * tree.h (integer_minus_onep): Declare it. > * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) <MULT_EXPR>: Test > integer_minus_onep instead of integer_all_onesp. > > It passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu, but if someone else wants > to go through the (not that long) list of integer_all_onesp to check for > things that might break... I did not change places where the name "-1" might > make more sense than "all 1s" but the type cannot be complex.
Ok. Can you followup with a patch to do s/integer_all_onesp/integer_minus_onep/ where it makes sense? Thanks, Richard.
