Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-03 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> This removes the duplication. I also removed the case (A&B)&(A&C) which >>> is >>> handled by reassoc. And I need 2 NOP checks, for the ca

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-03 Thread Marc Glisse
On Tue, 3 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: This removes the duplication. I also removed the case (A&B)&(A&C) which is handled by reassoc. And I need 2 NOP checks, for the case where @0 is a constant (that couldn't happen before my patch because

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-03 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > This removes the duplication. I also removed the case (A&B)&(A&C) which is > handled by reassoc. And I need 2 NOP checks, for the case where @0 is a > constant (that couldn't happen before my patch because canonicalization > would put the consta

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-02 Thread Marc Glisse
This removes the duplication. I also removed the case (A&B)&(A&C) which is handled by reassoc. And I need 2 NOP checks, for the case where @0 is a constant (that couldn't happen before my patch because canonicalization would put the constant as second operand). Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> this case seemed to be missing in the various X cmp X transformations. It >>> does not change the generated code in the t

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-02 Thread Marc Glisse
On Mon, 2 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, this case seemed to be missing in the various X cmp X transformations. It does not change the generated code in the testcase. The missing :c is rather trivial. I can commit it separately if y

Re: Canonicalize X u< X to UNORDERED_EXPR

2016-05-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this case seemed to be missing in the various X cmp X transformations. It > does not change the generated code in the testcase. > > The missing :c is rather trivial. I can commit it separately if you prefer. I think it's not missing