On 9/1/23 10:40, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
Just working through this in email, as there's a lot of
double-negatives and I managed to screw up my Linux PR this morning so
I may not be thinking that well...
The docs say "(if_then_else test true-value false-value)". So in this
case it's
t
On 9/1/23 06:13, Jeff Law wrote:
I could very well be mistaken, but define_insn is a pattern match and
opt2 has *ne* so the expression has to be in != form and thus needs
to work with that condition. No ?
My point was that
x = (a != 0) ? x : 0
is equivalent to
x = (a == 0) ? 0 : x
You ca
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:57:52 PDT (-0700), Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 8/31/23 06:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/30/23 15:57, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This was tripping up gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60003.c at -O1 since the
pattern semantics can't be expressed by zicond instructions.
This involves test code s
On 8/31/23 11:57, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 8/31/23 06:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/30/23 15:57, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This was tripping up gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60003.c at -O1 since the
pattern semantics can't be expressed by zicond instructions.
This involves test code snippet:
if (a
On 8/31/23 06:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/30/23 15:57, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This was tripping up gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60003.c at -O1 since the
pattern semantics can't be expressed by zicond instructions.
This involves test code snippet:
if (a == 0)
return 0;
else
retu
On 8/30/23 15:57, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This was tripping up gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60003.c at -O1 since the
pattern semantics can't be expressed by zicond instructions.
This involves test code snippet:
if (a == 0)
return 0;
else
return x;
}
which is equiva
This was tripping up gcc.c-torture/execute/pr60003.c at -O1 since the
pattern semantics can't be expressed by zicond instructions.
This involves test code snippet:
if (a == 0)
return 0;
else
return x;
}
which is equivalent to: "x = (a != 0) ? x : a"
and matches
