On 06/13/13 12:06, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
an incredibly suprising patch: I am adapting yet more fold-const
transformations to vectors... (it varies, the last patch was in forwprop)
I was quite conservative with respect to complex: I didn't want to
create a BIT_NOT_EXPR of a complex.
As an a
Hello,
an incredibly suprising patch: I am adapting yet more fold-const
transformations to vectors... (it varies, the last patch was in forwprop)
I was quite conservative with respect to complex: I didn't want to create
a BIT_NOT_EXPR of a complex.
As an aside, while writing this patch, I n
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:37:45PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:23:08PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>2013-05-17 Marc Glisse
> >>
> >>PR regression/57313
> >>* gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to wo
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:23:08PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
2013-05-17 Marc Glisse
PR regression/57313
* gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to work (x86).
I'd say it should be PR testsuite/57313 (and the PR changed t
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:23:08PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> 2013-05-17 Marc Glisse
>
> PR regression/57313
> * gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to work (x86).
I'd say it should be PR testsuite/57313 (and the PR changed to that).
Ok with that change, if some othe
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:54:14PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/17 Marc Glisse :
Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
get xpass on some platforms, now we hav
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:54:14PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/5/17 Marc Glisse :
> >
> > Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
> >
> > What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
> > get xpass on some platforms, now we have fails on some platforms,
2013/5/17 Marc Glisse :
>
> Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
>
> What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
> get xpass on some platforms, now we have fails on some platforms, and
> listing the platforms where we want the transformation to happen is
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
From: Marc Glisse
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:47:23 +0200
Here is what I tested during the night, I'll just rename the function.
I took the chance to remove an unnecessary alternative in TRUTH_XOR_EXPR.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-
> From: Marc Glisse
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:47:23 +0200
> Here is what I tested during the night, I'll just rename the function.
> I took the chance to remove an unnecessary alternative in TRUTH_XOR_EXPR.
>
> Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> 2013-05-14 Marc Glisse
>
>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse
wrote:
>
> @@ -8274,28
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse
wrote:
@@ -8274,28 +8269,34 @@ fold_unary_loc (location_t loc, enum tre
{
elem =
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Second try.
>>>
>>> I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
>>> started by the easy part, and never
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Second try.
I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
started by the easy part, and never did the rest).
Adapting invert_truthvalue_loc for vectors, I thought: callin
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Second try.
>
> I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
> started by the easy part, and never did the rest).
>
> Adapting invert_truthvalue_loc for vectors, I thought: calling
> fold_truth_not_expr and build1 if
Second try.
I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
started by the easy part, and never did the rest).
Adapting invert_truthvalue_loc for vectors, I thought: calling
fold_truth_not_expr and build1 if it fails is just the same as
fold_build1. Except that it was
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the
>>> existing
>>> optimizations. Note that I made fol
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the existing
optimizations. Note that I made fold_truth_not_expr safe for use with vector
BIT_NOT_EXPR.
Passes bootstrap+testsu
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the existing
> optimizations. Note that I made fold_truth_not_expr safe for use with vector
> BIT_NOT_EXPR.
>
> Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> 2013-0
Hello,
here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the
existing optimizations. Note that I made fold_truth_not_expr safe for use
with vector BIT_NOT_EXPR.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-09 Marc Glisse
gcc/
* fold-const.c (fold_negate_ex
20 matches
Mail list logo
