On 16/05/12 17:43, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
OK (if no regressions).
Cross tested with no regressions, and committed.
Thanks
Andrew
extern const struct tune_params *current_tune;
extern int vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits (rtx);
+
+extern void arm_emit_coreregs_64bit_shift (enum rtx_code, rtx, rtx, rtx, rtx,
+rtx);
#endif /* RTX_CODE */
#endif /* ! GCC_ARM_PROTOS_H */
diff
On 16/05/12 11:25, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Ok with those changes.
Hi Ramana,
Here's an update rebased and modified as requested.
Can you please confirm that the comments explain what you wanted to
know, and then I will commit it.
Thanks
Andrew
2012-05-16 Andrew Stubbs
On 16 May 2012 17:09, Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 16/05/12 11:25, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Ok with those changes.
Hi Ramana,
Here's an update rebased and modified as requested.
Can you please confirm that the comments explain what you wanted to know,
and then I will
On 16/02/12 15:33, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
OK for 4.8?
I forgot to address Ramana's comment about optimize_size.
This update fixes that and leaves everything else untouched.
OK?
Andrew
2012-02-17 Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* config/arm/arm-protos.h
On 11/02/12 01:11, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/08/2012 08:28 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Unfortunately, these don't work in Thumb mode (no IT block), and I'd have to
add arith-shift variants, I think, for ARM mode to work.
H ... I'll try again.
Does it work to simply use branches
On 02/08/2012 08:28 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Unfortunately, these don't work in Thumb mode (no IT block), and I'd have to
add arith-shift variants, I think, for ARM mode to work.
H ... I'll try again.
Does it work to simply use branches initially, and rely on post-reload
ifcvt to
On 07/02/12 22:19, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
way till reload and work. AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
before reload . The documentation doesn't appear to mention this,
therefore I would like to see if the cond_exec's
On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Andrew
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
way till reload and work. AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
before
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Andrew
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all
On 02/08/2012 01:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Andrew
I find it
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 02/08/2012 01:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana
On 08/02/12 11:18, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I've tried to do this, but it can't be done by a straight translation
because we don't have the insns available to do it. As I understand it,
all predicable instructions automatically get a cond_exec variant, but
the only if_then_else I could find (it's
Hi Andrew
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
way till reload and work. AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
before reload . The documentation doesn't appear to mention this,
therefore I would like to see if the cond_exec's can be recast as
if_then_else forms
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Andrew
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
way till reload and work. AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
before reload .
There is nothing wrong per-se with
On 30/01/12 15:25, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
What's the impact of this on -Os? At present we fall back to the
libcalls, but I can't immediately see how the new code would do that.
Gut feeling is that shift by a constant is always worth inlining at -Os,
but shift by a register isn't.
Ah, I
On 27/01/12 16:07, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Hi all,
This patch introduces a new, more efficient set of DImode shift
sequences for values stored in core-registers (as opposed to VFP/NEON
registers).
The new sequences take advantage of knowledge of what the ARM
instructions do with
Hi all,
This patch introduces a new, more efficient set of DImode shift
sequences for values stored in core-registers (as opposed to VFP/NEON
registers).
The new sequences take advantage of knowledge of what the ARM
instructions do with out-of-range shift amounts.
The following are
18 matches
Mail list logo
