On 11/29/2016 03:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/28/2016 06:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 27/11/2016 00:28, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
--- match.pd(revision 242742)
+++ match.pd(working copy)
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 29/11/2016 11:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>> (bit_and
>> (if (shift > 0)
>>(lshift (convert @0) { build_int_cst (integer_type_node, shift); })
>>(convert (rshift @0 { build_int_cst (integer_type_node, -shi
On 29/11/2016 11:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> (bit_and
>>> >> (if (shift > 0)
>>> >>(lshift (convert @0) { build_int_cst (integer_type_node, shift); })
>>> >>(convert (rshift @0 { build_int_cst (integer_type_node, -shift); })))
>>> >> @3)
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you think?
>> >
>>
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 06:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/11/2016 00:28, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
--- match.pd(revision 242742)
+++ match.pd(working copy)
@@ -2554,6 +2554
On 11/28/2016 06:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 27/11/2016 00:28, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
--- match.pd(revision 242742)
+++ match.pd(working copy)
@@ -2554,6 +2554,19 @@
(cmp (bit_and@2 @0 integer_pow2p@1) @1)
(icmp @2 { build_zero_cst (TREE_T
On 27/11/2016 00:28, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> --- match.pd(revision 242742)
>> +++ match.pd(working copy)
>> @@ -2554,6 +2554,19 @@
>> (cmp (bit_and@2 @0 integer_pow2p@1) @1)
>> (icmp @2 { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); })))
>>
>> +/* If w
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:22:44PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The combine.c hunk instead is needed to simplify cases that do not use the
> ternary operator (the "h" and "i" functions in the testcases) like this:
>
> return ((x >> 9) & 1) << 7;
>
> Normally this is simplified just fine to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
--- match.pd(revision 242742)
+++ match.pd(working copy)
@@ -2554,6 +2554,19 @@
(cmp (bit_and@2 @0 integer_pow2p@1) @1)
(icmp @2 { build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (@0)); })))
+/* If we have (A & C) != 0 ? D : 0 where C and D are powers of 2,
+ c
In code like the following from KVM:
/* it is a read fault? */
error_code = (exit_qualification << 2) & PFERR_FETCH_MASK;
it would be nicer to write
/* it is a read fault? */
error_code = (exit_qualification & VMX_EPT_READ_FAULT_MASK) ?
PFERR_FETCH_MASK : 0;
ins
