From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:57 AM
+static rtx
+sign_extend_short_imm (rtx src, machine_mode mode, unsigned int
prec)
+{
+ if (GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode) prec CONST_INT_P (src)
+ INTVAL (src) 0 val_signbit_known_set_p (mode,
Hi,
first of all, sorry for the delay. We quickly entered stage 4 and I thought
it was best waiting for stage 1 to update you on this.
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Of course both approaches are not exclusive.
On 02/09/2015 06:51 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
ChangeLog entry for part 1 is as follows:
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-02-09 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
* combine.c (sign_extend_short_imm): New.
(set_nonzero_bits_and_sign_copies): Use above new function
From: Alan Modra [mailto:amo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:35 PM
Actually this bit seems unnecessary as there is already some logic in
nonzero_bits1 for the CONST_INT case. So I guess the code can be
removed and the comment be moved there at the very least but
I'd
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:03:57PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/09/15 19:19, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
+#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
+/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and SRC is a
On 02/09/15 19:19, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
+#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
+/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and SRC is a non-negative
constant
+ that would appear negative in MODE,
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
generated code across a bootstrap.
Wouldn't that only tell whether
On 02/10/15 23:42, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
generated code across a
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:49 PM
Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for
rs6000?
MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
backend's MD files.
It's certainly possible, but unlikely.
Hi Eric,
I'm taking over Zhenqiang's work on this. Comments and updated patch
below.
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Eric Botcazou
+ rtx reg_equal = insn ? find_reg_equal_equiv_note (insn) : NULL_RTX;
+ unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT bits
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Eric,
I'm taking over Zhenqiang's work on this. Comments and updated patch
below.
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Eric Botcazou
+ rtx reg_equal
From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:57 AM
+#ifdef SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND
+/* If MODE has a precision lower than PREC and SRC is a non-negative
constant
+ that would appear negative in MODE, sign-extend SRC for use in
nonzero_bits
+
12 matches
Mail list logo
