Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-23 Thread Richard Biener
On November 23, 2016 6:25:43 PM GMT+01:00, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> Any takers for the RTL implementation? > >Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized? The forwrop test case I XFAILed with the patch. Richard. > >Bernd

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-23 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 11/10/2016 02:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote: Any takers for the RTL implementation? Do you have a testcase you think can be optimized? Bernd

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > On November 10, 2016 7:39:57 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse > wrote: > >On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of > >> ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-10 Thread Richard Biener
On November 10, 2016 7:39:57 PM GMT+01:00, Marc Glisse wrote: >On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of >> ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to >> are expanded to RTL undefined

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-10 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to are expanded to RTL undefined values are not reliably zero-extended and thus the transform is invalid. Ensuring the

[PATCH] Fix PR71762

2016-11-10 Thread Richard Biener
The following fixes PR71762 via reverting the transforms of ~X & Y to X < Y and similar because when the bools they apply to are expanded to RTL undefined values are not reliably zero-extended and thus the transform is invalid. Ensuring the zero-extension is too costly IMHO and the proper fix is