> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:57 AM
> > +static rtx
> > +sign_extend_short_imm (rtx src, machine_mode mode, unsigned int
> prec)
> > +{
> > + if (GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode) < prec && CONST_INT_P (src)
> > + && INTVAL (src) > 0 && val_signbit_know
On 02/09/2015 06:51 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
ChangeLog entry for part 1 is as follows:
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-02-09 Thomas Preud'homme
* combine.c (sign_extend_short_imm): New.
(set_nonzero_bits_and_sign_copies): Use above new function for sign
extension
Hi,
first of all, sorry for the delay. We quickly entered stage 4 and I thought
it was best waiting for stage 1 to update you on this.
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
>
> Of course both approaches are not exclusive.
> From: Alan Modra [mailto:amo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:35 PM
> > >
> > >Actually this bit seems unnecessary as there is already some logic in
> > >nonzero_bits1 for the CONST_INT case. So I guess the code can be
> > >removed and the comment be moved there at the very lea
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:03:57PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/09/15 19:19, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >>From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
> >
> >>>+#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
> >>>+/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:49 PM
> >
> > Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for
> rs6000?
> > MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
> > backend's MD files.
> It's certainly possible, but
On 02/10/15 23:42, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
generated code across a boot
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
>
> Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
> in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
> generated code across a bootstrap.
Wouldn't that only tell whe
On 02/09/15 19:19, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
+#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
+/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and SRC is a non-negative
constant
+ that would appear negative in MODE, sig
> From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
> > +#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
> > +/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and SRC is a non-negative
> constant
> > + that would appear negative in MODE, sign-extend SRC for use in
> nonzero
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I'm taking over Zhenqiang's work on this. Comments and updated patch
> below.
>
>> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
>> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Eric Botcazou
>> > + rtx reg_equal = insn ? find_
Hi Eric,
I'm taking over Zhenqiang's work on this. Comments and updated patch
below.
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Eric Botcazou
> > + rtx reg_equal = insn ? find_reg_equal_equiv_note (insn) : NULL_RTX;
> > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
12 matches
Mail list logo
