On 11/25/2013 06:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and
front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the
entire patch. This patch covers the loop code.
Ok?
@@ -2662,8 +2661,8 @@ iv_number_of_iterations (struct loop *loop, rtx
insn, rtx condition,
iv1.step = const0_rtx;
if (INTVAL (iv0.step) < 0)
{
- iv0.step = simplify_gen_unary (NEG, comp_mode, iv0.step, mode);
- iv1.base = simplify_gen_unary (NEG, comp_mode, iv1.base, mode);
+ iv0.step = simplify_gen_unary (NEG, comp_mode, iv0.step, comp_mode);
+ iv1.base = simplify_gen_unary (NEG, comp_mode, iv1.base, comp_mode);
}
iv0.step = lowpart_subreg (mode, iv0.step, comp_mode);
separate bugfix?
most likely. i will submit separately.
@@ -1378,7 +1368,8 @@ decide_peel_simple (struct loop *loop, int flags)
/* If we have realistic estimate on number of iterations, use it. */
if (get_estimated_loop_iterations (loop, &iterations))
{
- if (double_int::from_shwi (npeel).ule (iterations))
+ /* TODO: unsigned/signed confusion */
+ if (wi::leu_p (npeel, iterations))
{
if (dump_file)
{
what does this refer to? npeel is unsigned.
it was the fact that they were doing the from_shwi and then using an
unsigned test.
Otherwise looks good to me.
Thanks,
Richard.
