Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-09 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 8 November 2016 at 16:46, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 7 November 20

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-09 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 8 November 2016 at 16:46, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >> >> On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> >> wrote: >> >> > On 7 No

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-08 Thread Martin Sebor
Chritstophe reported to me that the commit caused test-cases pr35691-1.c and pr35691-2.c (which were added by the commit) to FAIL for cortex-a5: http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/241915/arm-none-linux-gnueabihf/diff-gcc-rh60-arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-arm-cortex-a5

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-08 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 08/11/16 11:16, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener w

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-08 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni > >> wrote: > >> > On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote: > >> >> On Fri,

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-08 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 8 November 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >> > On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 4 Novem

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-07 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: > > On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > >>> On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> > On Thu, 3 N

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-07 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 7 November 2016 at 23:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >>> On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote: >>> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, R

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-07 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 7 November 2016 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > The transform would also

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-07 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >> > > > > The transform would also work for vectors (element_precision for > >> > > > > the tes

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-04 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 4 November 2016 at 13:41, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> > > > > The transform would also work for vectors (element_precision for >> > > > > the test but also a value-matching zero which should ensure the >> >

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-04 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > The transform would also work for vectors (element_precision for > > > > > the test but also a value-matching zero which should ensure the > > > > > same number of elements). > > > > Um sorry, I didn't

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: The transform would also work for vectors (element_precision for the test but also a value-matching zero which should ensure the same number of elements). Um sorry, I didn't get how to check vectors to be of equal length by a matching zero. Could you pl

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Richard Biener
On November 3, 2016 6:11:07 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse wrote: >On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 3 November 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener >wrote: >>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >>> Hi Richard, The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding th

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi Richard, The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two transforms to match.pd: (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) == 0. (x != 0 || y != 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) != 0. For G

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: On 3 November 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Hi Richard, The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two transforms to match.pd: (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) =

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 3 November 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two >> transforms to match.pd: >> (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) == 0. >> (x != 0 || y != 0) -> (x | ty

Re: [match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi Richard, > The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two > transforms to match.pd: > (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) == 0. > (x != 0 || y != 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) != 0. > > For GENERIC, the "and" operator is tr

[match.pd] Fix for PR35691

2016-11-03 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
Hi Richard, The attached patch tries to fix PR35691, by adding the following two transforms to match.pd: (x == 0 && y == 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) == 0. (x != 0 || y != 0) -> (x | typeof(x)(y)) != 0. For GENERIC, the "and" operator is truth_andif_expr, and it seems for GIMPLE, it gets transformed t