On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > >>> The point of the match.pd changes is to canonicalize GIMPLE on some form
> > >>> when there are several from GIMPLE POV equivalent or better forms of
> > >>> writing
> > >>> the same thing. The a
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> The point of the match.pd changes is to canonicalize GIMPLE on some form
> >>> when there are several from GIMPLE POV equivalent or better forms of
> >>> writing
> >>> the same thing. The advantage of having one canonical way is that ICF,
> >>> SCC
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/9/21 5:43 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
be safely negated.
This regress
On 1/9/21 5:43 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
be safely negated.
>>> This regresses VAX code produced by
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
> > > in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
> > > be safely negated.
> >
> > This regresses VAX code produced by the cmpelim-eq-notsi.c test case (and
>
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:24AM +, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
> > in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
> > be safely negated.
>
>
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
> in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
> be safely negated.
This regresses VAX code produced by the cmpelim-eq-notsi.c test case (and
its si
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > Extending it to non-constants is what I wanted to avoid.
> > For ~(X + Y), because + is commutative, it wouldn't be a canonicalization
> > as it would pick more-less randomly whether to do ~X + Y or X + ~Y.
>
> ~X - Y or ~Y - X I gue
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 01:25:39PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for const
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 01:25:39PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
> > in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
> > be safely negated.
>
> Would i
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
be safely negated.
Would it have been wrong to produce ~X - C without caring about negating
(and then e
On December 12, 2020 9:10:41 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
>in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
>be safely negated.
>
>The first two simplify blocks is what has been requested in the PR
>a
Hi!
This patch adds the ~(X - Y) -> ~X + Y simplification requested
in the PR (plus also ~(X + C) -> ~X + (-C) for constants C that can
be safely negated.
The first two simplify blocks is what has been requested in the PR
and that makes the first testcase pass.
Unfortunately, that change also bre
13 matches
Mail list logo
