https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #13 from Li Jia He ---
In this optimization we assume n is either positive or divisible by the nth
power of 2.
So the result of the % is non-negative. However, it is not reasonable for
translating (a % 32)) to (a & 31). If a is sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #11 from Li Jia He ---
The reason is that it is the remainder of the nth power of 2. In x >> (n% 32),
32 is the fifth power of 2. The hexadecimal representation of 32 is 0x100.
Taking the remainder of 0x100, the data range is 0 ～ 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #9 from Li Jia He ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Li Jia He from comment #5)
> > > > Could we consider do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Li Jia He ---
fixed on trunk together with r278918. On behave of Xiong Hu to close the issue
since his account couldn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92098
--- Comment #3 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Mon Dec 2 06:23:56 2019
New Revision: 278892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000]Fix PR92098 by backporting vec_cmp and vcond_mask supports to
gcc-9-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92132
--- Comment #7 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Mon Dec 2 06:23:56 2019
New Revision: 278892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000]Fix PR92098 by backporting vec_cmp and vcond_mask supports to
gcc-9-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92132
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92098
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47035&action=edit
dump file(I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80834
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80834
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #27 from Li Jia He ---
Created attachment 46495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46495&action=edit
[v2] try to fix this issue in ifcombine(and_comparisons_1 and or_comparisons_1)
This patch is similar to the previ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #25 from Li Jia He ---
Indeed, this patch cannot catch all variants that appear.
I found that the optimize_vec_cond_expr function in the tree-ssa-reassoc.c file
will
call maybe_fold_and_comparisons and maybe_fold_or_comparisons, so j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #23 from Li Jia He ---
Created attachment 46477
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46477&action=edit
try to fix this issue in ifcombine(and_comparisons_1 and or_comparisons_1)
I am trying to solve this issue directl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
--- Comment #3 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Wed May 8 07:52:26 2019
New Revision: 271002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/90381
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr88676-2.c: Add 'target le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381
--- Comment #1 from Li Jia He ---
Thanks for pointing this out.
I used the following code:
struct foo1 {
int i:1;
};
int test1 (struct foo1 *x)
{
if (x->i == 0)
return 1;
else if (x->i == 1)
return 1;
return 0;
}
to dumped the
||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Li Jia He ---
It has been patched on the trunk and gcc 8, so modify this issue to a fixed
state.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
--- Comment #5 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Thu Feb 28 06:24:57 2019
New Revision: 269272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2019-02-20 Li Jia He
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
--- Comment #4 from Li Jia He ---
Author: helijia
Date: Wed Feb 20 02:35:39 2019
New Revision: 269033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000] fix PR 88100, range check for vec_splat_{su}{8,16,32}
GCC revision
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For both operands are unsigned, the following optimizations are valid, and
missing:
1. X > Y && X != 0 --> X > Y
2. X &g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
nent: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The test source is as follows:
__attribute__((noinline)) void calculate(const double* __restrict__ A, const
double* __restrict__ B, double* __re
23 matches
Mail list logo
