On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:18:05AM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> On 1/13/25 2:56 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > In order to better test our s390 builtins, I have been coming up with a
> > small tool in order to a
automatically into some (build) directory which
dejagnu then sources? Any pointers are highly appreciated.
Cheers,
Stefan
(operands[1];
emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (operands[2], gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, operands[2],
GEN_INT (48;
emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_rtx_REG (DFmode, REGNO (operands[0])),
gen_rtx_REG (DFmode, REGNO (operands[2];
DONE;
})
That restores bootstrap. However, this feels a bit hacky and I'm wondering
whether first of all the initial implementation is wrong at all, or whether
there exists a more elegant solution? Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Stefan
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01:56:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > I haven't tested it extensively but it triggers at least for the current
> > > case.
> > > I would have loved to also
ional
work---although the name is bit of a mouthful.
> If you want to throw a patch over the wall for testing, happy to put it into
> my tester and see what comes out the other side. I wouldn't be at all
> surprised if it tripped on other targets.
H
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 07:57:43AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/24 6:26 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 06:03:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/8/24 5:15 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 06:03:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/24 5:15 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc wrote:
>
> >
> > However `(reg:DI 61 [ MEM[(const union T *)p_2(D)] ])` referencing the
> > same pseudo in a different mode is not substituted in
out if gen_lowpart
doesn't return a subreg since then most likely `expr` was a paradoxical subreg.
At least in this example this leads to a partial initialization of pseudo 61 in
insn 6. This is fixed up later by pass init-regs which is introducing insn 17
and zeroing the entire pseudo 61.
I just ran into an unresolved iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/657360.html
which motivated me to dig into genoutput.cc where in process_template()
we already emit an error but only if the new compact syntax is used.
There is probably a reason for limiting the check to th
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 01:00:54PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Am 22.06.24 um 10:46 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 17.06.24 um 21:13 schrieb Stefan Schulze
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 09:50:43PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.24 um 21:13 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to add an alternative to an existing insn foobar:
> >
> > (defi
ing alternatives be
set automagically. Not sure whether this is supported?
If all fails, I have another idea how to solve this by utilizing PRINT_OPERAND.
However, now I'm curious whether my current attempt is feasible or not.
Cheers,
Stefan
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:50:04AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there some sort of guarantee that the unused part of a partial vector has
> > all bits set t
probably better solved by having some
sort of masking support by the hardware but I'm still keen to know.
Cheers,
Stefan
appear if I'm using e.g.
Fedora 34. Is this known and if so does there exist a workaround such
that building older versions on a recent OS works?
Cheers,
Stefan
instead
of code fiddling with the stack!
Stefan Kanthak
"Andrew Pinski" wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 3:54 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>> Nevertheless GCC fails to optimise code properly:
>>
>> --- .c ---
>> int ispowerof2(unsigned long long argument) {
>> return __builtin_popcountll(argument) =
"Andrew Pinski" wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 3:54 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
[...]
>> Nevertheless GCC fails to optimise code properly:
>>
>> --- .c ---
>> int ispowerof2(unsigned long long argument) {
>> return __builtin_popcountll(argu
"Andrew Pinski" wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:25 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> Just to show how SLOPPY, INCONSEQUENTIAL and INCOMPETENT GCC's developers
>> are:
>>
>> --- dontcare.c ---
>> int ispowerof2(unsigned __int12
"Andrew Pinski" wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:38 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> "Jakub Jelinek" wrote, completely clueless:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:04:11PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>>> OUCH: popcnt writes
"Jakub Jelinek" wrote, completely clueless:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:04:11PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> OUCH: popcnt writes the WHOLE result register, there is ABSOLUTELY
>> no need to clear it beforehand nor to clear the higher 24 bits
>> aft
Ts
output?
See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/jdjTc3EET for comparison!
FIX YOUR BUGS, KIDS!
Stefan
zx eax, al# superfluous!
ret
Will GCC eventually generate properly optimised code instead of bloat?
Stefan
You wrote:
>在 2023-05-26 23:40, Stefan Kanthak 写道:
>> Feel free to propose this alternative here (better elsewhere, where you'll
>> earn less laughter).
>> But don't forget that this 23-bit mantissa will be all zeroes for quite some
>> 64-bit (and even 32-
xmm0->ptest xmm1, xmm0
seteal->setzal
.L1:
ret ->ret
5 out of 14 instructions are superfluous here, or 18 of 50 bytes!
OUCH #3/#4: see above!
Will GCC eventually generate proper SSE4.1/AVX code?
Stefan
"Dave Blanchard" wrote:
> Hi Stefan, thanks for sharing this information.
> I was wondering if the code generators in earlier GCC
> versions were any better?
Just open one of the URLs I included, select another GCC version
and see the resulting code.
> Is this a proble
,
2 registers clobbered without need and reason, resulting in
2 superfluous memory writes
It's e REAL shame how bad GCC's code generator is!
Stefan
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 15:34, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 14:55, Stefan Kanthak
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> NOT obv
You wrote:
>在 2023-05-26 14:46, Stefan Kanthak 写道:
>> OOPS: why does GCC (ab)use the SSE2 alias "Willamette New Instruction Set"
>> (... ...)
>> OUCH: why does it FAIL to REALLY use SSE2, as shown in the comments on the
>>right side?
>
> Pleas
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 15:48, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > And for -m32 it is also the last option that wins, but as with
>> > many other cases just
other words: although -march= selects a (documented sub)set of
-mISA options, it does NEITHER reset any -mISA option set NOR any
-mno-ISA option reset BEFORE or AFTER itself, i.e. all -m[no-]ISA
options have precedence even if they preceed -march=.
Just document that!
Stefan
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 14:55, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
[...]
>> NOT obvious is but that -m -march= does not clear any
>> not supported in , i.e the last one does NOT win here.
>
> The last -march option selects the base set of instructi
"Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:19:54PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> > I find it very SURPRISING that you're only just learning the basics of
>> > how to use gcc NOW, after YELLING about all the OUCH.
>>
>> I'm NOT
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 13:23, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 12:42, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> >> Why does the documentation FAIL to specify that CP
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 13:09, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 12:29, Stefan Kanthak
>> > wrote:
>> >> OUCH: as shown in https://godbolt.org/z
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 12:42, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Why does the documentation FAIL to specify that CPU features given by
>> -m* override -m32 or enables them in ADDITION to those enabled by -march=?
>
> Because it's obvious. I
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 12:29, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> >> 3) SSE4.1 is supported since Core2, but -marc
"Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> 3) SSE4.1 is supported since Core2, but -march=core2 fails to enable it.
>>That's bad, REALITY CHECK, please!
>
> You're wrong.
> SSE4.1 first appe
"Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> 3) SSE4.1 is supported since Core2, but -march=core2 fails to enable it.
>>That's bad, REALITY CHECK, please!
>
> You're wrong.
> SSE4.1 first appe
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 09:00, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2023, 08:01 Andrew Pinski via Gcc, wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:56?PM S
"Jonathan Wakely" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, 08:01 Andrew Pinski via Gcc, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:56?PM Stefan Kanthak
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> compile the following function on a system with Core
#ret
14 instructions in 33 bytes# 11 instructions in 32 bytes
OUCH: why does GCC abuse EBX (and ECX too) and performs a superfluous
memory write?
Stefan Kanthak
Hi Alex,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 2:40 PM Alejandro Colomar
wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 1/20/23 11:06, Stefan Puiu wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:14 PM Alejandro Colomar
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> &g
he size, I guess it might matter if you want to port your code
to AIX, Solaris, OpenBSD etc. I don't think all software is meant to
be portable, though (or portable to those platforms). Maybe a warning
is in order that, for portable code, developers should check its size
on the other platforms t
"Thomas Koenig" wrote:
> On 09.01.23 12:35, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> 20 superfluous instructions of the total 102 instructions!
>
> The proper place for bug reports is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ .
OUCH: there's NO proper place for bugs at all!
> Feel fre
"Paul Koning" wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Koning" wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
"Paul Koning" wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> GCC (and other C compilers too) support the widening multiplication
>> of i386/AMD64 processors, but DON'T support their narrowing division:
>
>
LIU Hao wrote:
>在 2023/1/9 20:20, Stefan Kanthak 写道:
>> Hi,
>>
>> GCC (and other C compilers too) support the widening multiplication
>> of i386/AMD64 processors, but DON'T support their narrowing division:
>>
>>
>
> QWORD-DWORD division would c
ret
.end
JFTR: dependent on the magnitude of the numbers and the processor
it MIGHT be better to omit comparison and branch: there's a
trade-öff between the latency of the (un-pipelined) division
instruction and the latency of the conditional branch due to
misprediction.
Stefan Kanthak
sub eax, DWORD PTR [esp+4]
.endif
setoah
setzal
sub al, ah # al = ZF - OF
.if 0
cbw
cwde
.else
movsx eax, al
.endif
ret
Stefan Kanthak
re's no need to modify ECX!
cmovne rdx, rax
cmovne rax, rsi
ret
.L9:
mov rax, rsi
mov rdx, rdi
.L1:
ret
.L14:
mov r8, r9
xor r9d, r9d
mov rcx, r8
jmp .L4
20 superfluous instructio
pop esi
pop edi
pop ebp
ret
.L9:
mov ebx, edi # Ouch: GCC likes to play shell games!
mov ecx, esi #
mov edx, ebx #
mov eax, ecx #
pop ebx
pop esi
pop
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 05:53:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> > Am 24.11.2022 um 17:28 schrieb Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> > :
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Currently I'm looking into a wrong-code bug and would like to unders
ually didn't expect that because I added -save-temps to all the
intermediate commands which is also reflected in the environment
variable COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS. Thus, how do you keep temporary files?
Cheers,
Stefan
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:25:21PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 09:24, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > I gave unexpand from GNU coreutils 8.32 a try. Looks like it cannot
> > deal with form feeds or maybe I'm missing something?
> >
> &
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:53:37PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 20:49, Tim Lange wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28 2022 at 02:46:58 PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > > Is there documentation on setting up text editors to work with our
> > > coding
R incurs two cycles penalty on many Intel processors!
Better use XORPD there.
Stefan
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 8/23/21 3:46 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> JFTR: do you consider your wild speculations to be on-topic here?
>
> I suppose I should apologize: I did not intend to make any accusations
> here.
No need to, I can stand a little heat.
[...]
> I
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
[ 2bugzilla | !2bugzilla ]
>> You (and everybody else) if free to use GCC bugzilla.
>> Everybody and me is but also free NOT to use GCC bugzilla.
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Yes, you are free not
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 8/21/21 10:19 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[...]
>>> GCC doesn't do value range propagation of floating point values, not even
>>> the special ones like NaNs, infinities, +/- zeros etc., and without that the
&
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 09:40:16PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> > I believe your example doesn't take into account that the values can be NaN
>> > which compares false in all situations.
>>
>> That's a misbelief!
>> P
nt: https://godbolt.org/z/1ra7zcsnd
Replace
if (isnan(argx) || isnan(argy)) return argx + argy;
with
if ((argx != argx) || (argy != argy)) return argx + argy;
then feed the changed snippet to compiler explorer again, with and without
-ffast-math
Stefan
> --matt
>
> On Sat, Aug
ret
.L19:
addsd %xmm1, %xmm0
ret
.LC1:
.long 0
.long 1072693248
Stefan
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
Independent from the defunct flow analysis in the presence of NaNs, my
example demonstrates another minor deficiency: know thy instruction set!
See the comments in the assembly below.
> On 8/13/21 8:58 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> compil
"Gabriel Ravier" wrote:
Please don't FULL QUOTE!
> On 8/13/21 8:58 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> compile the following naive implementation of nextafter() for AMD64:
>>
>> JFTR: ignore the aliasing casts, they don't matter here!
movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
ret
.L15:
jne .L4
movabsq $-9223372036854775808, %rdx
movq%xmm1, %rax
andq%rdx, %rax
orq $1, %rax
movq%rax, %xmm0
ret
Stefan
Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
PLEASE DON'T STRIP ATTRIBUTION LINES: I did not write the following paragraph!
>> > I don't know what the standard says about NaNs in this case, I seem to
>> > remember that arithmetic instructions
eax
testl %eax, %eax
js L0
leal1(%eax), %edx
movl$0, %eax # SUPERFLUOUS:
cmovne %edx, %eax# cmovne is only executed if eax was not 0
ret
L0:
subl$1, %eax
ret
regards
Stefan
Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 6, 2021 4:32:48 PM GMT+02:00, Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Btw, have you made speed measurements with your improvements?
>>
>>No.
[...]
>>If the constant happens to be present in L1 cache, it MAY lo
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 02:43:34PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:58:12PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
[...]
>> >> The whole idea
Michael Matz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>> For -ffast-math, where the sign of -0.0 is not handled and the spurios
>> invalid floating-point exception for |argument| >= 2**63 is acceptable,
>
> This claim would need to be p
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:58:12PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> >> .intel_
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> targeting AMD64 alias x86_64 with -O3, GCC 10.2.0 generates the
>> following code (13 instructions using 57 bytes, plus 4 quadwords
>> using 32 bytes) for _
66 0f 73 d0 3fpsrlq xmm0, 63
37: 66 0f 73 f0 3fpsllq xmm0, 63 # xmm0 = (argument & -0.0) ?
-0.0 : 0.0
3c: 66 0f 56 c3 orpdxmm0, xmm3 # xmm0 = floor(argument)
40: c3 .L0: ret
.end
regards
Stefan
# xmm0 = (argument & -0.0) ?
-0.0 : 0.0
1c: 66 0f 56 c1 orpdxmm0, xmm1 # xmm0 = trunc(argument)
20: c3 .L0: ret
.end
regards
Stefan
6 0f 56 c3 orpdxmm0, xmm3 # xmm0 = ceil(argument)
40: c3 .L0: ret
.end
regards
Stefan
6 c1 orpdxmm0, xmm1 # xmm0 = round(argument)
20: c3 .L0: ret
.end
regards
Stefan
"Joseph Myers" wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>> Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> > None of these are valid constant expressions as defined by the standard
>> > (constant expressions cannot involve evaluated function calls).
>
before calling the main() routine.
JFTR: doing so would but inhibit the placement of such constants in the
read-only data section ... what is also allowed by the standard.
regards
Stefan
on log(sqrt(5.0) * 0.5 + 0.5)!
NOT amused
Stefan Kanthak
e: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
10: 31 c0 xor%eax,%eax
12: c3 ret
not amused
Stefan Kanthak
nt w)
{
return (v >> (31 & w))
| (v << (31 & -w));
}
int __bswapsi2 (int u) // should better be unsigned __bswapsi2 (unsigned u)!
{
return __rotlsi3 (u & 0xff00ff00, 8)
| __rotrsi3 (u & 0x00ff00ff, 8);
}
Stefan KanthaK
PS: reimplementing __bswapdi2(
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:01 AM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 8:37 PM Stefan Kanthak
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> fo
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:59 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to detect loops of the form
> >
> > while (*x != y)
> > ++x;
> >
> > which
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 8:37 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> for the AMD64 alias x86_64 platform and the __int128_t [DW]type,
>> the first few lines of the __mulvDI3() function from libgcc2.c
>>
>
such loops? Any comments?
Cheers,
Stefan
, 63
cmp r8, rsi
jne __mulvti3+0x48+65-31
cmp r9, rcx
jne __mulvti3+0xa0+65-31
mov rax, rdi
imul rdx
ret
...
not amused
Stefan Kanthak
.de/gcc.html>
for some examples.
The attached diff/patch provides better implementations.
Stefan
libgcc2.diff
Description: Binary data
The following source implements the __absv?i2() functions (see
<https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Integer-library-routines.html>)
for 32-bit, 64-bit and 128-bit integers in 3 different ways:
--- ub_or_!ub.c ---
// Copyleft 2014-2020, Stefan Kanthak
#ifdef __amd64__
__int128_t __a
ng?
(I use the variable names from the C source instead of register names
here)
mov %r11d, %ecx
shld %cl, d0, d1
xor n2, n2
shld %cl, n1, n2
shld %cl, n0, n1
JFTR: the test at b8 is superfluous.
regards
Stefan
ken" or "almost never taken" may help the
| processor better predict the remaining branches.
JFTR: I didn't know his article before, but I hope that you are willing
to learn.
Stefan
"Richard Biener" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 1:22 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Biener" wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 7:09 PM Stefan Kanthak
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Al
"Richard Biener" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 7:09 PM Stefan Kanthak
> wrote:
>>
>> "Allan Sandfeld Jensen" wrote:
>>
>> > On Freitag, 14. August 2020 18:43:12 CEST Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> >> Hi @ll,
>> >>
"Allan Sandfeld Jensen" wrote:
> On Freitag, 14. August 2020 18:43:12 CEST Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Hi @ll,
>>
>> in his ACM queue article <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3372264>,
>> Matt Godbolt used the function
>>
>> | b
"Nathan Sidwell"
> On 8/16/20 9:54 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> "Nathan Sidwell" wrote:
[...]
>>> Have you benchmarked it?
>>
>> Of course! Did you?
[...]
> you seem very angry about being asked for data.
As much as you hallucinated
"Nathan Sidwell" wrote:
> On 8/14/20 12:43 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Hi @ll,
>>
>> in his ACM queue article <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3372264>,
>> Matt Godbolt used the function
>>
>> | bool isWhitespace(char c)
x27;)
shreax, cl ; eax >>= (c % ' ')
xoredx, edx
cmp ecx, 33 ; CF = c <= ' '
adcedx, edx ; edx = (c <= ' ')
andeax, edx
ret
regards
Stefan Kanthak
tps://skanthak.homepage.t-online.de/integer.html#as-5>,
as well as (after trivial editing) __udivdi3() from
<https://skanthak.homepage.t-online.de/integer.html#ml-1>
and __divdi3() from
<https://skanthak.homepage.t-online.de/integer.html#ml-2>
regards
Stefan
ch would requires it?
Regards
Stefan
"Segher Boessenkool" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:19:14AM +0100, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> "Paul Koning" wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, that's a rather nasty cut & paste error I made.
>>
>> I suspected that.
>> Replacing
&g
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
