[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

2024-04-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 57993 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57993=edit Patch but it does not work for the code in this testcase I have to look into why it is not working for the testcase

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

2021-06-26 Thread steinar+gcc at gunderson dot no via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 --- Comment #4 from Steinar H. Gunderson --- Yes, the integer promotion actually costs some performance. It happens on both x86 and Arm. Should I file that as a separate bug?

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

2021-06-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- One odd thing is that while __builtin_bswap16 is declared as taking an uint16 argument the frontend promotes it to 'int' and that stays that way in GIMPLE: _16 = (short unsigned int) f$ab_14; _17 =

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

2021-06-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > if (b_13 < h.0_15) > goto ; [51.12%] > else > goto ; [48.88%] > >[local count: 548896825]: > _16 = (short unsigned int) f$ab_14; > _17 =

[Bug tree-optimization/101139] Unable to remove double byteswap in fast path

2021-06-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-20