On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>> @@ -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.
>>
>> Ah - probably a typo. Please just remove the "TODO".
>
> Done:
>
> Index: loop-unroll.c
> ===================================================================
> --- loop-unroll.c (revision 206183)
> +++ loop-unroll.c (working copy)
> @@ -1371,7 +1371,6 @@ decide_peel_simple (struct loop *loop, i
> /* If we have realistic estimate on number of iterations, use it. */
> if (get_estimated_loop_iterations (loop, &iterations))
> {
> - /* TODO: unsigned/signed confusion */
> if (wi::leu_p (npeel, iterations))
> {
> if (dump_file)
>
>>>> Otherwise looks good to me.
>
> Kenny hasn't yet integrated the first into trunk, but I'd like to ask anyway:
>
> Ok?
Ok.
Richard.
