On Tue, 7 May 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Can you followup with a patch to do
> > s/integer_all_onesp/integer_minus_onep/ where it makes sense?
>
> This passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I kept all_ones for
> bitmask type of operations (BIT_*_EXPR, VEC_COND_EXPR) and used minus_one for
> the maximal unsigned value. A few cases were not very clear and chosen rather
> randomly. There is one place in fold-const where we would actually want
> instead an integer_zero_or_all_onesp which checks whether each element of a
> vector (or complex) is 0 or -1, which would accept {-1,0,0,-1} for instance,
> but I didn't add that.
Hmm, just that I notice now - will integer_minus_onep () return true
for -1U? Maybe that's confusing?
Richard.
> 2013-05-07 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr>
>
> * convert.c (convert_to_integer): Replace integer_all_onesp with
> integer_minus_onep.
> * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_lt,
> number_of_iterations_exit): Likewise.
> * predict.c (tree_predict_by_opcode): Likewise.
> * builtins.c (expand_builtin_memory_chk, maybe_emit_chk_warning,
> maybe_emit_sprintf_chk_warning, fold_builtin_memory_chk,
> fold_builtin_stxcpy_chk, fold_builtin_stxncpy_chk,
> fold_builtin_strcat_chk, fold_builtin_strncat_chk,
> fold_builtin_sprintf_chk_1, fold_builtin_snprintf_chk_1): Likewise.
> * fold-const.c (optimize_bit_field_compare, fold_unary_loc,
> fold_binary_loc): Likewise.
> * expr.c (do_store_flag): Likewise.
> * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (conditional_replacement): Likewise.
>
>
