On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:03 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> BTW, any reason why we are not (yet?) using something like:
> >>
> >> #define FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT(STMT, ITER, SSAVAR) \
> >> for (auto_end_imm_use_stmt_traverse auto_end
On Oct 28, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>> BTW, any reason why we are not (yet?) using something like:
>>
>> #define FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT(STMT, ITER, SSAVAR) \
>> for (auto_end_imm_use_stmt_traverse auto_end \
>> STMT) = first_imm_use_stmt (&(ITER), (SSAVAR))),
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:18 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > For trapping math SRC may be a constant? Better be safe
> > and guard against TREE_CODE (src) != SSA_NAME.
>
> *nod*
>
> > You also want to guard against SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI (src)
On Oct 27, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> For trapping math SRC may be a constant? Better be safe
> and guard against TREE_CODE (src) != SSA_NAME.
*nod*
> You also want to guard against SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI (src)
> since you cannot generally propagate or move uses of those.
What if
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:32 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Oct 23, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Can you move it one pass further after sink please?
>
> I did, but it didn't solve the recip regressions that my first attempt
> brought about.
>
> > Also I don't
> > remember exactly but does
On Oct 23, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> Can you move it one pass further after sink please?
I did, but it didn't solve the recip regressions that my first attempt
brought about.
> Also I don't
> remember exactly but does pass_sincos only handle sin/cos unifying?
It rearranges some powi comp
On October 23, 2020 4:23:35 PM GMT+02:00, Alexandre Oliva
wrote:
>On Oct 22, 2020, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 2020, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> The option is provided by default, but there is an alternate version
>>> that doesn't, that is used for vxworks targets.
>
>> vxworks float
