[PATCH] D116231: [InstCombine] (~a & ~b & c) | (~a & ~c & b) --> (b ^ c) & ~a

[Jay Foad via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

foad added a comment.

I don't really have an opinion on the patch, but I'm curious.

Given (~a & ~b & c) | (~a & ~c & b), do we make any attempt to pull out the ~a like this: ~a & ((~b & c) | (~c & b)) ? If not, why not? Would that be a good thing to address? Then it's just a case of simplifying the two-variable (~b & c) | (~c & b) -> b ^ c which is easy.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D116231/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D116231