Hi!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:13:28AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> This fails bootstrap since we trigger -Wsign-compare without the cast to
> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT on shift_amt:
>
> + else if (GET_CODE (inner) == MULT
> +&& CONST_INT_P (XEXP (inner, 1))
> +&& pos_rtx == 0 &&
On 28/10/2020 09:09, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 27/10/2020 17:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:35:59AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > > On 26/10/2020 12:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > I do not like handling both mult and ashift in one case like this,
On 27/10/2020 17:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:35:59AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > On 26/10/2020 12:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > I do not like handling both mult and ashift in one case like this, it
> > > complicates things for no good reason. Write it as two
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:35:59AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> On 26/10/2020 12:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > I do not like handling both mult and ashift in one case like this, it
> > complicates things for no good reason. Write it as two cases, and it
> > should be good.
>
> OK, the
On 27/10/2020 10:35, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 26/10/2020 12:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > I do not like handling both mult and ashift in one case like this, it
> > complicates things for no good reason. Write it as two cases, and it
> > should be good.
>
> OK, the attached
On 26/10/2020 12:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:28:42PM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > On 26/10/2020 07:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > > Can you instead replace the mult by a shift somewhere earlier in
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:18:54PM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> - else if (GET_CODE (inner) == ASHIFT
> + else if ((GET_CODE (inner) == ASHIFT || GET_CODE (inner) == MULT)
As I wrote in the other mail, write this as two cases. Write something
in the comment for the mult one that this is for the
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:28:42PM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> On 26/10/2020 07:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > Can you instead replace the mult by a shift somewhere earlier in
> > make_extract? That would make a lot more sense
On 26/10/2020 07:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > @@ -7650,20 +7650,27 @@ make_extraction (machine_mode mode, rtx inner,
> > HOST_WIDE_INT pos,
> > is_mode = GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (inner));
> >inner = SUBREG_REG
On 26/10/2020 06:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:06:22AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > Well, only the low 32 bits of the subreg are valid. But because those
> > low 32 bits are shifted left 2 times, the low 34 bits of the ashift are
> > valid: the bottom 2 bits of the
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> @@ -7650,20 +7650,27 @@ make_extraction (machine_mode mode, rtx inner,
> HOST_WIDE_INT pos,
> is_mode = GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (inner));
>inner = SUBREG_REG (inner);
> }
> + else if ((GET_CODE (inner) == ASHIFT
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:06:22AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> Well, only the low 32 bits of the subreg are valid. But because those
> low 32 bits are shifted left 2 times, the low 34 bits of the ashift are
> valid: the bottom 2 bits of the ashift are zeros, and the 32 bits above
> those are from
On 26/10/2020 11:06, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Well, only the low 32 bits of the subreg are valid. But because those
> low 32 bits are shifted left 2 times, the low 34 bits of the ashift are
> valid: the bottom 2 bits of the ashift are zeros, and the 32 bits above
> those are from the
On 26/10/2020 05:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:09:41AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > On 22/10/2020 15:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > > > Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:09:41AM +, Alex Coplan wrote:
> On 22/10/2020 15:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > > Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can emit an ASHIFT of
> > > an extend in place of an
Hi Segher,
On 22/10/2020 15:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> > Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can emit an ASHIFT of
> > an extend in place of an extraction, but fails to make the corresponding
> >
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> This patch remedies this situation: after the patch, make_extraction()
> now also identifies RTXs such as:
>
> (mult:DI (subreg:DI (reg:SI r)) (const_int 2^n))
>
> and rewrites this as:
>
> (mult:DI (sign_extend:DI (reg:SI r))
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can emit an ASHIFT of
> an extend in place of an extraction, but fails to make the corresponding
> canonicalization/simplification when presented with a MULT by a power of
> two. Such a
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:36:02AM +0100, Alex Coplan wrote:
> Ping.
>
> Hopefully this is easier to review/test now that we fix the AArch64 bug first
> and deliberately regress code quality so that the impact of the combine patch
> can be measured.
Yes, I am just busy. I'll get to it
Ping.
Hopefully this is easier to review/test now that we fix the AArch64 bug first
and deliberately regress code quality so that the impact of the combine patch
can be measured.
On 15/10/2020 09:59, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can emit
Currently, make_extraction() identifies where we can emit an ASHIFT of
an extend in place of an extraction, but fails to make the corresponding
canonicalization/simplification when presented with a MULT by a power of
two. Such a representation is canonical when representing a left-shifted
address
21 matches
Mail list logo
