Ilya Leoshkevich writes:
> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:49 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> What prevents combine from handling this? Are the instructions in
>> different blocks?
>
> I wanted to do this before combine, because in __ieee754_sqrtl case
> fwprop turns this (example from the commit mes
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:49 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 09:41 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > Suppose we have:
> > > > (set (reg/v:T
Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 09:41 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> >
>> Suppose we have:
>> >
>> > (set (reg/v:TF 63) (mem/c:TF (reg/v:DI 62)))
>> > (set (reg:FPRX2 66) (su
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:13 PM Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 09:41 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > Suppose we have:
> > >
> > > (set (reg/v:TF 63) (mem/c:TF (reg/v:DI 62)))
> > > (
On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 09:41 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> Suppose we have:
> >
> > (set (reg/v:TF 63) (mem/c:TF (reg/v:DI 62)))
> > (set (reg:FPRX2 66) (subreg:FPRX2 (reg/v:TF 63) 0))
> >
> > It is clearly
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Boostrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux, ppc64le-redhat-linux
> and s390x-redhat-linux. I realize it might be too late for a change
> like this, but it's desirable to have this in conjunction with the
> https://
Boostrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux, ppc64le-redhat-linux
and s390x-redhat-linux. I realize it might be too late for a change
like this, but it's desirable to have this in conjunction with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563799.html s390
regression fix, whic