On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a
separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it
would break, the folding of x * -1 ?
2013-04-05 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
* tree.c (integer_all_onesp) <COMPLEX_CST>: Test that both
components are all 1s.
(integer_minus_onep): New function.
* tree.h (integer_minus_onep): Declare it.
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) <MULT_EXPR>: Test
integer_minus_onep instead of integer_all_onesp.
It passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu, but if someone else wants
to go through the (not that long) list of integer_all_onesp to check for
things that might break... I did not change places where the name "-1" might
make more sense than "all 1s" but the type cannot be complex.