On 9/27/23 00:29, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff,
We touched upon this in our airport "rendezvous". I'm curious if you
have the wip bits lying around - (a) to get a feel for how this could be
done and (b) to see why REE and/or similar construct in CSE don't work
as expected.
Not in any us
Hi Jeff,
On 9/19/23 07:59, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/18/23 21:37, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 9/18/23 19:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
For the cases which do require sign extends, but not being
eliminated due to "missing definition(s)" I'm working on adapting
Ajit's RE
On 9/18/23 21:37, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 9/18/23 19:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
For the cases which do require sign extends, but not being eliminated
due to "missing definition(s)" I'm working on adapting Ajit's REE ABI
interfaces work [2] to work for RISC-V
On 9/18/23 19:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
For the cases which do require sign extends, but not being eliminated
due to "missing definition(s)" I'm working on adapting Ajit's REE ABI
interfaces work [2] to work for RISC-V as well.
I wonder if we could walk the DE
On 9/18/23 19:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
For the cases which do require sign extends, but not being eliminated
due to "missing definition(s)" I'm working on adapting Ajit's REE ABI
interfaces work [2] to work for RISC-V as well.
I wonder if we could walk the DEC
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
For the cases which do require sign extends, but not being eliminated
due to "missing definition(s)" I'm working on adapting Ajit's REE ABI
interfaces work [2] to work for RISC-V as well.
I wonder if we could walk the DECL_ARGUMENTS for current_functio
On 9/18/23 13:45, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff, Andrew
I've been looking into redundant sign extension and while there are
things to be improved in REE, there's something I wanted to confirm
before heading off into the weeds.
Consider the test below:
int foo(int unused, int n, unsigned y,
On 9/18/23 13:10, Andrew Waterman wrote:
Vineet,
Your understanding of the ABI is correct; both int and unsigned int
arguments must already be sign-extended. The sext.w is semantically
unnecessary; the bltu could correctly reference a1 instead of a6.
Good luck eliminating it!
Thanks for the
Vineet,
Your understanding of the ABI is correct; both int and unsigned int
arguments must already be sign-extended. The sext.w is semantically
unnecessary; the bltu could correctly reference a1 instead of a6.
Good luck eliminating it!
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:45 PM Vineet Gupta wro
Hi Jeff, Andrew
I've been looking into redundant sign extension and while there are
things to be improved in REE, there's something I wanted to confirm
before heading off into the weeds.
Consider the test below:
int foo(int unused, int n, unsigned y, unsigned delta){
int s = 0;
unsigned
10 matches
Mail list logo
