https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:418b71c0d535bf91df78bad2e198c57934682eaa
commit r13-2048-g418b71c0d535bf91df78bad2e198c57934682eaa
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the latest patch for PR 98954 fixes this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Note for rotate it is as simple as:
> (for cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
> (cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
>
> Let me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for rotate it is as simple as:
(for cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
(cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
Let me see if that is already there or not and test that one out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, if the value range for one MULT_EXPR operand is [0, 1], then it will
never overflow, and is enough to know the other operand is ~[0, 0] and it can
be optimized to the [0, 1] range operand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
if a was signed, then a * 2 == 0 just becomes a == 0 as if a * 2 overflows that
would become undefined
For unsigned, if a has a range of [0,(unsigned)INT_MAX] then a * 2 == 0 can be
optimized to a == 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #4 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ishiura-compiler at ml dot
kwansei.ac.jp ---
FYI, clang-3.6 -O3 seems to do the same optimization on org.c as well as on
opt.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #3 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ishiura-compiler at ml dot
kwansei.ac.jp ---
Looking only from outside, the two programs are virtually equal, so we
just wondered what hinders the optimization on one of the programs.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
14 matches
Mail list logo
