Il 29/05/2014 19:20, pins...@gmail.com ha scritto:
What is your Pmode?
Pmode is dimode while ptr_mode is simode. Pointers are zero extended when
converting between si and di modes.
As you noted, the fundamental difference between x32 and aarch64 is that
aarch64 will still use 64-bit
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 05:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The key is the
XEXP (x, 1) ==
On May 29, 2014, at 9:13 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:23 AM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 9:13 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:13
On May 29, 2014, at 10:09 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:23 AM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 9:13 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 05:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The key is the
XEXP (x, 1) == convert_memory_address_addr_space
(to_mode, XEXP (x, 1),
Ok, you removed ignore_address_wrap_around, so we're almost there.
On 07/28/2011 07:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
@@ -712,7 +715,16 @@ convert_modes (enum machine_mode mode, enum machine_mode
oldmode, rtx x, int uns
if (GET_CODE (x) == SUBREG SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P (x)
GET_MODE_SIZE
On 07/29/2011 08:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
+ temp = rtl_hooks.gen_lowpart_no_emit (mode, x);
This line is obviously spurious, sorry.
+ if (no_emit)
+ return rtl_hooks.gen_lowpart_no_emit (mode, x);
+ else
+return gen_lowpart (mode, x);
Paolo
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok, you removed ignore_address_wrap_around, so we're almost there.
On 07/28/2011 07:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
@@ -712,7 +715,16 @@ convert_modes (enum machine_mode mode, enum
machine_mode oldmode, rtx x, int uns
if
On 07/28/2011 12:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Regarding correctness: you're converting a SImode operation to DImode by
pushing in the zero_extend operation. What makes you think that base +
constant offset won't overflow in any case?
You have not answered this.
And also: what are you
Hello!
convert_memory_address_addr_space has a special PLUS/MULT case for
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 0. ?It turns out that it is also needed
for all Pmode != ptr_mode cases. ?OK for trunk?
2011-06-11 ?H.J. Lu ?hongjiu...@intel.com
? ? ? ?PR middle-end/47727
? ? ? ?* explow.c
On 07/28/2011 11:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
convert_memory_address_addr_space has a special PLUS/MULT case for
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 0. ?It turns out that it is also needed
for all Pmode != ptr_mode cases. ?OK for trunk?
2011-06-11 ?H.J. Lu ?hongjiu...@intel.com
? ? ? ?PR
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
convert_memory_address_addr_space has a special PLUS/MULT case for
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 0. ?It turns out that it is also needed
for all Pmode != ptr_mode cases. ?OK for trunk?
2011-06-11 ?H.J. Lu
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/13/2011 07:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Here is the patch. OK for trunk?
Again, at least you should explain clearly _why_ you need
ignore_address_wrap_around. You said elsewhere x32 should be first clean,
then fast.
On 07/27/2011 07:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
If IRNORE_ADDRESS_WRAP_AROUND is TRUE, we
+ also permute the conversion and addition of a constant. It is used to
+ optimize cases where overflow of base + constant offset won't happen or
+ its behavior is implementation-defined for a given target.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/27/2011 07:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
If IRNORE_ADDRESS_WRAP_AROUND is TRUE, we
+ also permute the conversion and addition of a constant. It is used to
+ optimize cases where overflow of base + constant offset won't
On 07/13/2011 07:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Here is the patch. OK for trunk?
Again, at least you should explain clearly _why_ you need
ignore_address_wrap_around. You said elsewhere x32 should be first
clean, then fast.
if (GET_CODE (x) == SUBREG SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P (x)
On 07/11/2011 05:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The key is the
XEXP (x, 1) == convert_memory_address_addr_space
(to_mode, XEXP (x, 1), as)
test. It ensures basically that the constant has 31-bit precision, because
otherwise the constant would change from e.g. (const_int
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 05:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The key is the
XEXP (x, 1) == convert_memory_address_addr_space
(to_mode, XEXP (x, 1), as)
test. It ensures basically that the constant has 31-bit
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 18:39, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? Certainly Y = 8 has 31-bit (or less) precision. So it has the same
representation in SImode and DImode, and the test above on XEXP (x, 1)
succeeds.
And then we permute conversion and addition, which leads to the issue
Why? Certainly Y = 8 has 31-bit (or less) precision. So it has the same
representation in SImode and DImode, and the test above on XEXP (x, 1)
succeeds.
And then we permute conversion and addition, which leads to the issue you
raised above. In another word, the current code permutes
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Why? Certainly Y = 8 has 31-bit (or less) precision. So it has the same
representation in SImode and DImode, and the test above on XEXP (x, 1)
succeeds.
And then we permute conversion and addition, which leads to the
On 07/11/2011 02:04 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
With my original change, I got
(const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI (iplane.1577) [flags 0x2]
var_decl 0x70857960 iplane)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])))
I think it is safe to permute the conversion and addition operation
if one operand
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 02:04 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
With my original change, I got
(const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI (iplane.1577) [flags 0x2]
var_decl 0x70857960 iplane)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])))
I think it
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 02:04 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
With my original change, I got
(const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI (iplane.1577) [flags 0x2]
var_decl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/11/2011 02:04 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
With my original change, I got
(const:DI
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 23:31, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:51 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011
Hi Jeff,
Can you take a look at this?
Thanks.
H.J.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:27 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Ping.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:58 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
convert_memory_address_addr_space has a special PLUS/MULT case for
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED
On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -383,18 +383,13 @@ convert_memory_address_addr_space (enum machine_mode
to_mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
case PLUS:
case MULT:
-
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 07/05/2011 04:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -383,18 +383,13 @@ convert_memory_address_addr_space (enum
Ping.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:58 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
convert_memory_address_addr_space has a special PLUS/MULT case for
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED 0. It turns out that it is also needed
for all Pmode != ptr_mode cases. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
---
33 matches
Mail list logo
