Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Richard Biener writes: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Richard Biener writes: >> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Biener wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > On Thu,

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Biener wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Richard Biener writes: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Biener wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> > >> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018,

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > On

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > > > > On

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:32 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener > > > > wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > > > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > > >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > > to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). > > > >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). > > Originally this was developed as part of bitfield lowering

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On May 20, 2016 6:08:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:54:39AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: >> I thought I had filed a bugzilla at some point, but can't >> find it right now. If you compare bitfield code >> compiled for Haswell on LLVM and GCC it is

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andi Kleen wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:11:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andi Kleen wrote: Richard Biener writes: The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:54:39AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > I thought I had filed a bugzilla at some point, but can't > find it right now. If you compare bitfield code > compiled for Haswell on LLVM and GCC it is very visible > how much worse gcc is. We really need to lower bitfield operations

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:11:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >Richard Biener writes: > > > >>The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > >>facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > >>to currently

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andi Kleen wrote: Richard Biener writes: The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). I wonder if these patches would make

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Richard Biener writes: > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). I wonder if these patches would make it easier to use the Haswell bit

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > I'd say ppc and aarch64 are fine. Thanks for noticing. > > So like this then? Yes. Thanks, Richard. > 2016-05-20 Jakub Jelinek > > PR

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > I'd say ppc and aarch64 are fine. Thanks for noticing. So like this then? 2016-05-20 Jakub Jelinek PR tree-optimization/29756 gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c: Add -Wno-psabi -w to dg-options.

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:59:18AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > Sounds good. I will commit later with your wording. > > Unfortunately, the new testcase fails e.g. on i?86-*-* or on powerpc*. > On i?86-*-* (without -msse) I actually see 2 different

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:59:18AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Sounds good. I will commit later with your wording. Unfortunately, the new testcase fails e.g. on i?86-*-* or on powerpc*. On i?86-*-* (without -msse) I actually see 2 different issues, one is extra -Wpsabi warnings, and another

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Thu, 19 May 2016, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Index: trunk/gcc/tree.def > > === > > *** trunk.orig/gcc/tree.def 2016-05-17 17:19:41.783958489 +0200 > > --- trunk/gcc/tree.def 2016-05-19 10:23:35.779141973 +0200 > >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

> Index: trunk/gcc/tree.def > === > *** trunk.orig/gcc/tree.def 2016-05-17 17:19:41.783958489 +0200 > --- trunk/gcc/tree.def2016-05-19 10:23:35.779141973 +0200 > *** DEFTREECODE (ADDR_EXPR, "addr_expr", tcc > ***

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > BIT_INSERT_EXPR > > This. > > > Any preference? Here is an updated patch. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I plan to commit this tomorrow if there are no further

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Hi, On Tue, 17 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > BIT_INSERT_EXPR This. > Any preference? Ciao, Michael.

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

> I'm fine with renaming it to BIT_FIELD_INSERT_EXPR, maybe > BIT_INSERT_EXPR then as it doesn't really have anything to do > with "bitfields". > > Any preference? BIT_INSERT_EXPR is fine with me. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Sorry, that was the wrong vector-6.c — should have realized. In any > case, for each of the vector tests, we get appropriate use of > element-wise loads, and no load-hit-store bitfield assignments, so the > code generation is what we want to see.

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > > to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). > > Why not call it BIT_FIELD_INSERT_EXPR instead to make it clear that

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Sorry, that was the wrong vector-6.c — should have realized. In any case, for each of the vector tests, we get appropriate use of element-wise loads, and no load-hit-store bitfield assignments, so the code generation is what we want to see. Sorry for the misleading information. Bill > On

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

> The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to > facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed > to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). Why not call it BIT_FIELD_INSERT_EXPR instead to make it clear that it's an expression and not a mere operation? >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

Hi Richard, (Sorry for duplication to your personal email, I had new-mailer issues.) The new vector-6 test produces very good code for powerpc64le with this patch: addis 9,2,.LC0@toc@ha sldi 3,3,32 addi 9,9,.LC0@toc@l rldicl 9,9,0,32 or 3,9,3 blr

[PATCH][RFC] Introduce BIT_FIELD_INSERT

The following patch adds BIT_FIELD_INSERT, an operation to facilitate doing bitfield inserts on registers (as opposed to currently where we'd have a BIT_FIELD_REF store). Originally this was developed as part of bitfield lowering where bitfield stores were lowered into read-modify-write cycles