On 04/10/2015 06:38 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
> OTOH calling helper function to do multiplication by a constant 8 looks
> rather stupid. I guess we're not going to have non-8-bit bytes on xtensa
> anytime soon, maybe this multiplication can be replaced with shift?
Yes, that's what I'd do.
r~
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:16 AM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> How can we have a mulsi3 pattern that don't get expanded until it's
>>> optimized, and only gets expanded to
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:16 AM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>> How can we have a mulsi3 pattern that don't get expanded until it's
>> optimized, and only gets expanded to a call if it couldn't be optimized?
>
> I'm not completely sur
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Ok, then I see why this doesn't happen: mulsi3 pattern matching is
> conditional on TARGET_MUL32, so when TARGET_MUL32 ==0 and
> expand_simple_binop emits a call to a helper it's not considered
> mulsi3, it's just a call:
>
> (call_insn/u 17 1
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:51 PM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>> Then configuration w/o multiplication should call helper at -O0 and
>> use shift at higher optimization levels?
>
> That is what I would expect.
Ok, then I see why thi
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Then configuration w/o multiplication should call helper at -O0 and
> use shift at higher optimization levels?
That is what I would expect.
