On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > Richi, > > this is the first of either 2 or 3 patches to fix this. There are two > places that need be fixed for us to do 1X + 1 and this patch fixes the first > one. There was an unnecessary call to mul_full and this was the only call > to mul_full. So this patch removes the call and also the function itself. > > The other place is the tree-vpn that is discussed here and will be dealt > with in the other patches. > > tested on x86-64. > > Ok to commit?
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > Kenny > > > > On 11/29/2013 05:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Kenneth Zadeck >> <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >>> >>> This patch does three things in wide-int: >>> >>> 1) it cleans up some comments. >>> 2) removes a small amount of trash. >>> 3) it changes the max size of the wide int from being 4x of >>> MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT to 2x +1. This should improve large muls and >>> divs >>> as well as perhaps help with some cache behavior. >> >> @@ -235,8 +233,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. >> range of a multiply. This code needs 2n + 2 bits. */ >> >> #define WIDE_INT_MAX_ELTS \ >> - ((4 * MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) \ >> - / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) >> + (((2 * MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) \ >> + / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) + 1) >> >> I always wondered why VRP (if that is the only reason we do 2*n+1) >> cannot simply use FIXED_WIDE_INT(MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT*2 + 1)? >> Other widest_int users should not suffer IMHO. widest_int should >> strictly cover all modes that the target can do any arithmetic on >> (thus not XImode or OImode on x86_64). >> >> Richard. >> >>> ok to commit > >
