Re: Reassociation and trapping operations

2020-11-25 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 10:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:15 AM Marc Glisse > wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc wrote: > > > > > I have a C floating point comparison (a <= b && a >= b), which > >

Reassociation and trapping operations

2020-11-24 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
Hi! I have a C floating point comparison (a <= b && a >= b), which test_for_singularity turns into (a <= b && a == b) and vectorizer turns into ((a <= b) & (a == b)). So far so good. eliminate_redundant_comparison, however, turns it into just (a == b). I don't think this is correct, because (a <

Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p

2020-11-03 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Fri, 2020-10-30 at 09:22 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:20 PM Ilya Leoshkevich > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc > > > wrote: > >

Re: Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p

2020-10-29 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:36 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of > > jump threading and b_c_p causing the la

Incremental updating of SSA_NAMEs that are passed to b_c_p

2020-10-27 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
Hi, I'd like to revive the old discussion regarding the interaction of jump threading and b_c_p causing the latter to incorrectly return 1 in certain cases: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547236.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549288.html The conclus

New pseudos in splitters

2020-09-23 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
Hi, "Defining How to Split Instructions" in gccint states the following: The preparation-statements are similar to those statements that are specified for define_expand ... Unlike those in define_expand, however, these statements must not generate any new pseudo-registers. I see that there is co

Re: subreg vs vec_select

2020-09-11 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 12:14 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Ilya Leoshkevich writes: > > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 12:17 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc writes: > &g

Re: subreg vs vec_select

2020-09-11 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 12:17 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc writes: > > > On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 16:09 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > >

Re: subreg vs vec_select

2020-09-11 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc writes: > > On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 16:09 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:50:56AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via > >

Re: subreg vs vec_select

2020-09-10 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 16:09 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:50:56AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc > wrote: > > I have a vector pseudo containing a single 128-bit value (V1TFmode) > > and > > I need to access its last 64 b

subreg vs vec_select

2020-09-09 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc
Hi! I have a vector pseudo containing a single 128-bit value (V1TFmode) and I need to access its last 64 bits (DFmode). Which of the two options is better? (subreg:DF (reg:V1TF) 8) or (vec_select:DF (subreg:V2DF (reg:V1TF) 0) (parallel [(const_int 1)])) If I use the first one, I run into a pro