> It is nicely generic as well, but requires more insns than this if your
> ISA does not have a full complement of logical ops. Well, just an
> "andnot" is enough, you don't actually need eqv here.
Indeed, and it's rather spectacular for 64-bit operations on 32-bit machines
because the sign bit
> And the generic one for div is as good as it gets as well I suppose?
There is no support for div at all, only add/sub/neg/mul.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:03:25PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Let's see. Completely untested. Inputs in regs 3 and 4, output in reg 3.
> > 32-bit code all the way.
> >
> > add:
> > eqv 9,3,4
> > add 3,3,4
> > xor 4,3,4
> > and. 4,9,4
> > blt
> >
> > sub:
> > xor 9,
> It's better than the generic branch sequence below, or yours. It still
> sucks, obviously.
OK, I thought you were talking about the double-width result. The non-branch
sequence I posted is the generic non-branch sequence (that Ada was using).
> Let's see. Completely untested. Inputs in reg
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 06:14:48PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Maybe the best you can do is generate the double-width result, and then
> > check if the upper halve is the sign extension of the lower halve. Maybe
> > some trickery can help (for add/sub/neg at least).
>
> That's inefficient, ev
> Maybe the best you can do is generate the double-width result, and then
> check if the upper halve is the sign extension of the lower halve. Maybe
> some trickery can help (for add/sub/neg at least).
That's inefficient, even for additive operations.
> You can also just FAIL the expander if !TA
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > You can use SO instead, but then you have to make sure it is clear before
> > you run the OE=1 instruction. SO of course is the cheapest way to access
> > overflow (it is copied to the CR field on any compare or recording insn).
>
> But not in the "Base" category. GCC should not generate mcrxr unless some
> flag enabling the "Embedded" category is set (this can of course be set
> via -mcpu=), or we have ISA 1.xx . It is probably nicer if we treat
> mcrxr separately, with an -mmcrxr flag, with TARGET_MCRXR.
OK, that makes
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:54:27AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > mcrxr does not exist anymore. It is not implemented in any IBM non-embedded
> > CPU since POWER4. PA6T does not have it either. In some versions of the
> > 2.0x ISA it does exist, but only in the optional "embedded" category.
>
> mcrxr does not exist anymore. It is not implemented in any IBM non-embedded
> CPU since POWER4. PA6T does not have it either. In some versions of the
> 2.0x ISA it does exist, but only in the optional "embedded" category.
Yes, it exists in all (public) versions of the unified 2.0x ISA.
> Lin
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the patch. Unfortunately there is a big problem with it :-(
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> this implements support for signed overflow arithmetic on PowerPC. It's an
> implementation for Power ISA v2.0x, i.e. it doesn't take account the new
Hi,
this implements support for signed overflow arithmetic on PowerPC. It's an
implementation for Power ISA v2.0x, i.e. it doesn't take account the new OV32
flag introduced in v3.0. It doesn't implement unsigned overflow arithmetic
because my understanding is that the generic support already
12 matches
Mail list logo
