On 6/9/23 11:27, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
signed 1 bit integers.
This changes that not to match that and fixes the 2 new testcases at
all optimizati
So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
signed 1 bit integers.
This changes that not to match that and fixes the 2 new testcases at
all optimization levels.
OK for GCC 13? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_6
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:48 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
> > be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:48 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
> be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
> signed 1 bit integers.
> This changes that not to match that and fixes the 2 new testcas
So for the attached testcase, we assumed that zero_one_valued_p would
be the value [0,1] but currently zero_one_valued_p matches also
signed 1 bit integers.
This changes that not to match that and fixes the 2 new testcases at
all optimization levels.
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu