https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|14.2
--- Comment #18 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff8d0ce17fb585a29a83349acbc67b2dd3556629
commit r14-6495-gff8d0ce17fb585a29a83349acbc67b2dd3556629
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31cc9824d1cd5e0f7fa145d0831a923479333cd6
commit r14-5013-g31cc9824d1cd5e0f7fa145d0831a923479333cd6
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c572f09a751cbd365e2285b30527de5ab9025972
commit r14-2998-gc572f09a751cbd365e2285b30527de5ab9025972
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> So. Before expand we have
>
> _6 = (__int128) x_3(D);
> x.0_1 = _6 << 59;
> _2 = x.0_1 >> 59;
Jakub is trying to emulate this using shifts but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So. Before expand we have
_6 = (__int128) x_3(D);
x.0_1 = _6 << 59;
_2 = x.0_1 >> 59;
_4 = (__int128 unsigned) _2;
return _4;
That should have been optimised better :-(
The RTL code it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Wonder how many important targets provide double-word shift patterns vs.
> ones which expand it through generic code.
Very long ago rs6000 had special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To handle this in generic code, I think expand_expr_real_2 woiuld need to
notice this case of << operand of arithmetic >> by same amount and tell that to
expand_variable_shift -> expand_shift_1 ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, grepping tmp-mddump.md files shows only x86 having ashlti3 and ashrti3
expanders.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ubizjak at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b50a851eef4b70aabf28fa875d9b2a302d17b66a
commit r14-2684-gb50a851eef4b70aabf28fa875d9b2a302d17b66a
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC|uros at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks.
Shouldn't
INTVAL (operands[2]) < * BITS_PER_UNIT
be
UINTVAL (operands[2]) < * BITS_PER_UNIT
just to make sure it doesn't trigger for negative?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Improved testcase which shows similar behavior also with bitfields:
#ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__
#define type __int128
#define N 59
#else
#define type long long
#define N 27
#endif
struct S { type a : sizeof
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
