On 2015-07-18 08:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 11:33 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >For now I do wonder if we shouldn't get the size changing extu/exts
> >mandatory instead of reusing the 64-bit only version. This doesn't
> >change the generated code, at least on x86.
>
> I'd be surpr
On 07/17/2015 11:33 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
For now I do wonder if we shouldn't get the size changing extu/exts
mandatory instead of reusing the 64-bit only version. This doesn't
change the generated code, at least on x86.
I'd be surprised if it did anywhere. I don't mind starting with them
On 2015-07-17 07:38, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 12:03 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >Now that we have real size changing ops, we don't need to marked high
> >bits of the destination as garbage. The goal of the optimizer is to
> >predict the value of the temps (and not of the registers)
On 07/15/2015 12:03 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Now that we have real size changing ops, we don't need to marked high
bits of the destination as garbage. The goal of the optimizer is to
predict the value of the temps (and not of the registers) and do
simplifications when possible. The problem there
Now that we have real size changing ops, we don't need to marked high
bits of the destination as garbage. The goal of the optimizer is to
predict the value of the temps (and not of the registers) and do
simplifications when possible. The problem there is therefore not the
fact that those bits are n
