On Fri, 10 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is something Uros requested in the PR, at least with BIT_NOT_EXPRs
> it is easy. Previous store merging changes required that bit_not_p
> is equal on all stores in the group (in all 3 spots, i.e. on the result
> of BIT_{AND,IOR,XOR}_EXPR a
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:51:19PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On 10/11/17 13:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > This is something Uros requested in the PR, at least with BIT_NOT_EXPRs
> > it is easy. Previous store merging changes required that bit_not_p
> > is equal on all stores in
Hi Jakub,
On 10/11/17 13:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This is something Uros requested in the PR, at least with BIT_NOT_EXPRs
it is easy. Previous store merging changes required that bit_not_p
is equal on all stores in the group (in all 3 spots, i.e. on the result
of BIT_{AND,IOR,XOR}_EXPR and
Hi!
This is something Uros requested in the PR, at least with BIT_NOT_EXPRs
it is easy. Previous store merging changes required that bit_not_p
is equal on all stores in the group (in all 3 spots, i.e. on the result
of BIT_{AND,IOR,XOR}_EXPR and on both of the operands).
This patch handles mixed
