On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 01:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> What happens if we remove the nops stripping from integer_zerop? Do other
>> integer predicates strip nops?
>
>
> Many predicates do, but removing that doesn't break anything in the
> tests
On 11/21/2015 01:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
What happens if we remove the nops stripping from integer_zerop? Do other
integer predicates strip nops?
Many predicates do, but removing that doesn't break anything in the
testsuite. So, how about this?
commit b4714ac166ce22b54e89ebb860d5263
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On November 20, 2015 8:58:15 PM GMT+01:00, Jason Merrill
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In this bug, we hit the (A & sign-bit) != 0 -> A < 0 transformation.
>>> Because of delayed folding, the operands aren't
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On November 20, 2015 8:58:15 PM GMT+01:00, Jason Merrill
wrote:
In this bug, we hit the (A & sign-bit) != 0 -> A < 0 transformation.
Because of delayed folding, the operands aren't fully folded yet, so we
have NOP_EXPRs around INTEGER_CSTs, and so c
On November 20, 2015 8:58:15 PM GMT+01:00, Jason Merrill
wrote:
>In this bug, we hit the (A & sign-bit) != 0 -> A < 0 transformation.
>Because of delayed folding, the operands aren't fully folded yet, so we
>
>have NOP_EXPRs around INTEGER_CSTs, and so calling wi::only_sign_bit_p
>ICEs. We've
On 11/20/2015 02:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK if testing passes?
Which it did.
Jason
