On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 03/12/15 05:26, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/12/15 03:19, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard
On 03/12/15 05:26, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 01/12/15 03:19, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw
>>> wrote:
On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 01/12/15 03:19, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw
>> wrote:
>>> On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> The aarch64's problem is we don't define add
On 01/12/15 03:19, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't
have direct insn pattern des
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't
>>> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't
>> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to
>> gcc internal:
>>
>> ‘addptrm3’
>>
On 24/11/15 14:36, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 24/11/15 13:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 24/11/15 13:06, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That
is,
for a shift-and-add operation, t
On 24/11/15 13:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 24/11/15 13:06, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That is,
for a shift-and-add operation, the shift operand must appear first. Ie.
(plus (shift (op, op))
On 24/11/15 13:06, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That is,
>> for a shift-and-add operation, the shift operand must appear first. Ie.
>>
>> (plus (shift (op, op)), op)
>>
>> not
>>
>> (plus (op
On 24/11/15 10:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I presume you are aware of the canonicalization rules for add? That is,
for a shift-and-add operation, the shift operand must appear first. Ie.
(plus (shift (op, op)), op)
not
(plus (op, (shift (op, op))
R.
Looks to me it's not optimal to gener
On 24/11/15 09:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't
>> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to
>> gcc internal:
>>
>> ‘addptrm3’
>> Like addm3 but
On 24/11/15 02:51, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> The aarch64's problem is we don't define addptr3 pattern, and we don't
>>> >> have direct insn pattern describing the "x + y << z". According to
>>> >> gcc internal:
>>> >>
>>> >> ‘addptrm3’
>>> >> Like addm3 but is guaranteed to only be used for address cal
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 20/11/15 08:31, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, James Greenhalgh
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> GI
On 20/11/15 08:31, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, James Greenhalgh
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for ad
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
>>> expressions like below:
>>>FORM1
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
>> expressions like below:
>>FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
>>FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:21:01PM +0800, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
> expressions like below:
>FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
>FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
>
> They are invalid address expression on AArch64, so will be le
Hi,
GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
expressions like below:
FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
They are invalid address expression on AArch64, so will be legitimized by
aarch64_legitimize_address. Below are what we got from that
18 matches
Mail list logo
