https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #25 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ac58063114cf491891072be6205d32a42c6707d
commit r14-6915-g3ac58063114cf491891072be6205d32a42c6707d
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by YunQiang Su :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:65d4b32dee2508f5bcdd999a132332cd46cf8a4d
commit r14-6905-g65d4b32dee2508f5bcdd999a132332cd46cf8a4d
Author: YunQiang Su
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #23 from YunQiang Su ---
I guess, we should drop TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P and
TARGET_MODE_REP_EXTENDED for MIPS. In fact, it will only effect MIPS64 SI->DI.
Then it may reduce the maintain workload for MIPS64.
Let's have a try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #22 from YunQiang Su ---
Any way, we should split the assert to another patch.
I will try to find all the wrongly used TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #21 from YunQiang Su ---
Sorry, Roger. Your patch is correct.
I misunderstood it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #20 from YunQiang Su ---
This patch has 2 problems:
1. We may need some more steps to add
gcc_assert (outprec < inprec)
Now, I met some ICE with it.
2. It doesn't solve the this problem:
In combine.cc, jump_insn eats trunc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #19 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 56930
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56930&action=edit
proposed patch
And now for a patch that does (or should) work. This even contains an
optimization, we middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #18 from Roger Sayle ---
Please ignore comment #17, the above patch is completely bogus/broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #17 from Roger Sayle ---
I think this patch might resolve the problem (or move it somewhere else):
diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc
index 9fef2bf6585..218bca905f5 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/expr.cc
@@ -6274,10 +6274,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #16 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #15)
> Is MIPS64 actually a TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_TARGET? If SImode is implicitly
> assumed to be (sign?) extended, then an arbitrary DImode value/register
> can't be us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #14 from YunQiang Su ---
New patch:
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.cc b/gcc/expmed.cc
index fbd4ce2d42f..66d45da67df 100644
--- a/gcc/expmed.cc
+++ b/gcc/expmed.cc
@@ -850,6 +850,7 @@ store_bit_field_1 (rtx str_rtx, poly_uint64 bitsize,
po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #13 from YunQiang Su ---
This tiny patch works will this small test case by replace with dins to ins.
I have no idea whether it will have any side effects.
Any idea?
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.cc b/gcc/expmed.cc
index fbd4ce2d42f..37
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> But I don't have any other notes on my change (nor a testcase).
So I found some notes and it is similar but still different.
We were expanding:
;; insn.j_form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Created attachment 55496 [details]
> old patch against GCC 4.7
>
> I am trying to find my notes on this old patch but our internal bug system
> has moved a fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55496&action=edit
old patch against GCC 4.7
I am trying to find my notes on this old patch but our internal bug system has
move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #8 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> The initial RTL has a signed extend in there:
>
>
> (insn 20 19 23 2 (set (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ])
> (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
20 matches
Mail list logo
