On November 23, 2016 6:25:43 PM GMT+01:00, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
>On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Any takers for the RTL implementation?
>
>Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized?
The forwrop test case I XFAILed with the patch.
Richard.
>
>Bernd
On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Any takers for the RTL implementation?
Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized?
Bernd
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> On November 10, 2016 7:39:57 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of
> >> ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to
>
On November 10, 2016 7:39:57 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of
>> ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to
>> are expanded to RTL undefined values are not reliably z
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of
~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to
are expanded to RTL undefined values are not reliably zero-extended
and thus the transform is invalid. Ensuring the zero-extens
The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of
~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to
are expanded to RTL undefined values are not reliably zero-extended
and thus the transform is invalid. Ensuring the zero-extension
is too costly IMHO and the proper fix is
