https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
--- Comment #10 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
mcccs at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Bug 103216 depends on bug 103218, which changed state.
Bug 103218 Summary: (a < 0) << signbit is not always optimized to a &
signbitmask at the gimple level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103218
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||103218
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51786=edit
Patch which I am testing
I still need to add testcases (there are many) and finish up the changelog.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I am going to implement this. I think I only need the first conversion (and
> > making sure cond goes away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am going to implement this. I think I only need the first conversion (and
> making sure cond goes away which leads to the second one) which should lead
> to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> For x86_64 we might be able to solve this at the RTL level during combine:
> (set (reg/v:QI 84 [ ])
> (if_then_else:QI (lt (subreg:QI (reg:SI 86 [ a ]) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103216
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For x86_64 we might be able to solve this at the RTL level during combine:
(set (reg/v:QI 84 [ ])
(if_then_else:QI (lt (subreg:QI (reg:SI 86 [ a ]) 0)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(ior:QI
12 matches
Mail list logo