On 2/20/24 07:21, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 20, 2024, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/19/24 21:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This backport for gcc-13 is required for pr90838.c to get the expected
count of andi instructions on riscv64-elf
.
In general, shouldn't backports be focused on correctness
On Feb 20, 2024, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 2/19/24 21:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> This backport for gcc-13 is required for pr90838.c to get the expected
>> count of andi instructions on riscv64-elf
.
> In general, shouldn't backports be focused on correctness issues?
*nod*.
> It's unclear what
On 2/19/24 21:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This backport for gcc-13 is required for pr90838.c to get the expected
count of andi instructions on riscv64-elf, rather than fail because of
two extra andi insns in functions where it is not necessary. (On
riscv32-elf, it passes). Regstrapped on
This backport for gcc-13 is required for pr90838.c to get the expected
count of andi instructions on riscv64-elf, rather than fail because of
two extra andi insns in functions where it is not necessary. (On
riscv32-elf, it passes). Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, along with
other backports, and
On 5/4/23 11:14, Raphael Moreira Zinsly wrote:
We were not able to match the CTZ sign extend pattern on RISC-V
because it get optimized to zero extend and/or to ANDI patterns.
For the ANDI case, combine scrambles the RTL and generates the
extension by using subregs.
So to provide a few more
We were not able to match the CTZ sign extend pattern on RISC-V
because it get optimized to zero extend and/or to ANDI patterns.
For the ANDI case, combine scrambles the RTL and generates the
extension by using subregs.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/106888
*
