On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:17 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:42AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > > The other patch is something sug
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:42AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > The other patch is something suggested by Richard S., avoid using OImode
> > > > for this and inst
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:42AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > The other patch is something suggested by Richard S., avoid using OImode
> > > for this and instead use a partial int mode that is smaller. This is
> > > still
> > >
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:42AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > The other patch is something suggested by Richard S., avoid using OImode
> > for this and instead use a partial int mode that is smaller. This is still
> > playing with fire because even the partial int mode is larger than
> >
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs, because during try_combine of i3:
> (insn 18 17 19 2 (parallel [
> (set (reg:CCO 17 flags)
> (eq:CCO (plus:OI (sign_extend:OI (reg:TI 96))
> (const_int 1 [0x1]))
> (
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because during try_combine of i3:
(insn 18 17 19 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:CCO 17 flags)
(eq:CCO (plus:OI (sign_extend:OI (reg:TI 96))
(const_int 1 [0x1]))
(sign_extend:OI (plus:TI (reg:TI 96)
On 11/24/2013 05:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of this
in the common code, especially in the
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
> having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of
> this in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for
> ty
We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of this
in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for types
beyond 64 bits.
Our motivation was that this is already a hu
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the i386 port.
Should this patch also address c
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and
front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the
entire patch.This patch covers the i386 port.
Ok?
* config/i386/i386.c: Include wide-int.h.
(ix86_data_alignment): Use
11 matches
Mail list logo
