[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2021-09-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > That leaves if there case where the first argument is non-zero and the > result is used. I think going the route that Jakub mentions is best for this > last

[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2021-08-29 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW Severity|normal

[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2020-03-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I have tried: --- gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c.jj2020-01-12 11:54:36.323414766 +0100 +++ gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c 2020-03-03 12:44:54.116134173 +0100 @@ -11902,7 +11902,18 @@ rdseed_step:

[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2020-03-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2020-03-01 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 Jack Lloyd changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

2020-03-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This is already been fixed in GCC 10: addq%rdx, %rdi movq%rsi, %rax adcq%rcx, %rax xorq%rdi, %rax ret .ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.1 20200121