Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 03:06:41PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This is an alternative presentation of the change that we discussed
>> a few weeks ago, and that you already tested:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-March/613486.html
>>
>> T
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 03:06:41PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:10:51PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> (and:DI (subreg:DI (reg:SI r115) 0)
> >> (const_int 63))
> >
> > This is more expensive already?! An "and" usuall
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:10:51PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> g:c23a9c87cc62bd177fd0d4db6ad34b34e1b9a31f uses nonzero_bits
>> information to convert sign_extends into zero_extends.
>> That change is semantically correct in itself, but for the
>> testcase in the
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:10:51PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> g:c23a9c87cc62bd177fd0d4db6ad34b34e1b9a31f uses nonzero_bits
> information to convert sign_extends into zero_extends.
> That change is semantically correct in itself, but for the
> testcase in the PR, it leads to a series of unfor
g:c23a9c87cc62bd177fd0d4db6ad34b34e1b9a31f uses nonzero_bits
information to convert sign_extends into zero_extends.
That change is semantically correct in itself, but for the
testcase in the PR, it leads to a series of unfortunate events,
as described below.
We try to combine:
Trying 24 -> 25:
