On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:43:00PM -0800, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > > The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact
> > power-of-2 is
> > > seen as C1. The reason why I would prefer to have this canonicalised the
>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:55 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact
> power-of-2 is
> > seen as C1. The reason why I would prefer to
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 20:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > The simplification that distributes the shift (i.e. the one that Jakub
> > > referred
> > > to as fighting the new rule) is also run after GIMPLE has been expanded to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 20:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > The simplification that distributes the shift (i.e. the one that Jakub
> > referred
> > to as fighting the new rule) is also run after GIMPLE has been expanded to
> > RTX. In my understanding, this still implies that even if we have a
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 08:53:56PM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > On 11/11/20 3:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > >> The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact
> > >> power-of-2 is
> > >>
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 19:17, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/20 3:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >> The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact power-of-2
> >> is
> >> seen as C1. The reason
On 11/11/20 3:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>> The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact power-of-2 is
>> seen as C1. The reason why I would prefer to have this canonicalised the
>> same way
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> The patch addresses this by disallowing that rule, if an exact power-of-2 is
> seen as C1. The reason why I would prefer to have this canonicalised the
> same way the (X & C1) * C2 is canonicalised, is that cleaning this up during
Jakub,
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 11:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:17:32AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > From: Philipp Tomsich
> >
> > The function
> > long f(long a)
> > {
> > return(a & 0xull) << 3;
> > }
> > is folded into
> > _1 =
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:17:32AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> From: Philipp Tomsich
>
> The function
> long f(long a)
> {
> return(a & 0xull) << 3;
> }
> is folded into
> _1 = a_2(D) << 3;
> _3 = _1 & 34359738360;
> wheras the construction
> return (a &
From: Philipp Tomsich
The function
long f(long a)
{
return(a & 0xull) << 3;
}
is folded into
_1 = a_2(D) << 3;
_3 = _1 & 34359738360;
wheras the construction
return (a & 0xull) * 8;
results in
_1 = a_2(D) & 4294967295;
_3 = _1 * 8;
This
11 matches
Mail list logo
