[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

2015-08-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

2015-08-25 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

2015-08-25 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) (In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #0) Gcc will expand and detect field setting on

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

2015-08-25 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Oh his patch only handled multiplies/divide and not shifts. But it should be easy to add them to match.pd to simplify this at the tree level.

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

2015-08-25 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #0) Gcc will expand and detect field setting on 32-bit integers, but for some reason miss the opportunity on 64-bit. The immediates for 64bit