On 20/08/12 12:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 17/08/12 16:20, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Ok, in which case we have to give is_widening_mult_rhs_p enough smarts
to not strip
(s32)u32
and return u32.
I'll have
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 20/08/12 12:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 17/08/12 16:20, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Ok, in which case we have to give is_widening_mult_rhs_p
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 17/08/12 16:20, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Ok, in which case we have to give is_widening_mult_rhs_p enough smarts
to not strip
(s32)u32
and return u32.
I'll have another think about it.
Take two.
This
Hi Richard,
your patch fails here; I get the build failure:
/projects/tob/gcc-git/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c: In function ‘bool
is_widening_mult_rhs_p(tree, tree, tree_node**, tree_node**)’:
/projects/tob/gcc-git/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:2014:18: error:
variable ‘rhs_code’ set but not
On 20/08/12 15:01, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Richard,
your patch fails here; I get the build failure:
/projects/tob/gcc-git/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c: In function ‘bool
is_widening_mult_rhs_p(tree, tree, tree_node**, tree_node**)’:
PR54295 shows that widening multiply-accumulate operations can end up
with incorrect code. The path to the failure is as follows
1) Compiler detects a widening multiply operation and generates the
correct widening-multiply operation. This involves stripping off the
widening cast to leave the
On 17/08/12 15:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The fix is to make is_widening_mult_p note that it has been called with
a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR and rather than decompose the operands again, to
simply extract the existing operands, which have already been formulated
correctly for a widening multiply
On 17/08/12 15:22, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The fix is to make is_widening_mult_p note that it has been called with
a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR and rather than decompose the operands again, to
simply extract the existing operands, which have already been formulated
On 17/08/12 15:31, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:22, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The fix is to make is_widening_mult_p note that it has been called with
a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR and rather than decompose the operands again, to
simply extract the existing
On 17/08/12 15:39, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:31, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:22, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The fix is to make is_widening_mult_p note that it has been called with
a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR and rather than decompose the
On 17/08/12 15:47, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
If we don't have a 16x16-64 mult operation then after step 1 we'll
still have a MULT_EXPR, not a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR, so when we reach step2
there's nothing to short circuit.
Unless, of course, you're expecting us to get
step1 - 16x16-32 widen mult
step2
On 17/08/12 16:06, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/08/12 15:47, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
If we don't have a 16x16-64 mult operation then after step 1 we'll
still have a MULT_EXPR, not a WIDEN_MULT_EXPR, so when we reach step2
there's nothing to short circuit.
Unless, of course, you're expecting us
On 17/08/12 16:20, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Ok, in which case we have to give is_widening_mult_rhs_p enough smarts
to not strip
(s32)u32
and return u32.
I'll have another think about it.
Take two.
This version should address your concerns about handling
(u32)u16 *
On 17/08/12 16:20, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
No, given a u16xu16-u64 operation in the code, and that the arch
doesn't have such an opcode, I'd expect to get
step1 - (u32)u16 x (u32)u16 - u64
Hmm, I would have thought that would be more costly than
(u64)(u16 x u16 - u32)
You might be
On 17/08/12 18:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Take two.
This version should address your concerns about handling
(u32)u16 * (u32)u16 - u64
We now look at each operand directly, but when doing so we check whether
the operand is the same size as the result or not. When it is, we can
strip
15 matches
Mail list logo
