On Fri, 17 May 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:22 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 May 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > While I was re-testing the latest version of this patch I noticed that
> > > it FAILs an AArch64 test,
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:22 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > While I was re-testing the latest version of this patch I noticed that
> > it FAILs an AArch64 test, gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c. With the patch
> > we generate one
On Fri, 17 May 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> While I was re-testing the latest version of this patch I noticed that
> it FAILs an AArch64 test, gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c. With the patch
> we generate one instruction more:
>
> sbfiz x1, x1, 4, 32
> stp x29,
Hi Richard,
While I was re-testing the latest version of this patch I noticed that
it FAILs an AArch64 test, gcc.target/aarch64/subsp.c. With the patch
we generate one instruction more:
sbfiz x1, x1, 4, 32
stp x29, x30, [sp, -16]!
add x1, x1, 16
mov
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:58 AM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> New patch with the requested changes can be found below.
>
> I don't know how much this affects SCEV, but I do believe that we
> should incorporate this change somehow. I've seen various cases of
> suboptimal address calculation codegen
New patch with the requested changes can be found below.
I don't know how much this affects SCEV, but I do believe that we
should incorporate this change somehow. I've seen various cases of
suboptimal address calculation codegen that boil down to this.
gcc/match.pd | 31
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> >
> > > The original motivation for this pattern was that the following function
> > > does
> > > not fold to 'return 1':
> > >
> > > int foo(int
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> > The original motivation for this pattern was that the following function
> > does
> > not fold to 'return 1':
> >
> > int foo(int *a, int j)
> > {
> > int k = j - 1;
> > return a[j - 1]
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> The original motivation for this pattern was that the following function does
> not fold to 'return 1':
>
> int foo(int *a, int j)
> {
> int k = j - 1;
> return a[j - 1] == a[k];
> }
>
> The expression ((unsigned long) (X +- C1) * C2) appears
The original motivation for this pattern was that the following function does
not fold to 'return 1':
int foo(int *a, int j)
{
int k = j - 1;
return a[j - 1] == a[k];
}
The expression ((unsigned long) (X +- C1) * C2) appears frequently as part of
address calculations (e.g. arrays). These
10 matches
Mail list logo
