Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
So here is my question: Would it be big deal to teach optabs to
expand plus:di, minus:di as libcall? Maybe even compare is
feasible? Like so:
I don't know what the best approach would be, but for just about
any
On 06/20/2011 07:20 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
A libcall could be added in TARGET_INIT_LIBCALLS, so a new hook is not
needed. All that's needed is that optabs tests for presence of such
an entry and prefers it over inline expansion (and prefers insn over
libcall). It appears that + and -
Richard Henderson schrieb:
On 06/20/2011 07:20 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
A libcall could be added in TARGET_INIT_LIBCALLS, so a new hook is not
needed. All that's needed is that optabs tests for presence of such
an entry and prefers it over inline expansion (and prefers insn over
libcall).
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I don't see what's bat with the patch, it's straight forward.
C is a high-level language, defined in terms of high-level semantics
rather than machine instructions. C code should be written where possible
using machine-independent functionality,
Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I don't see what's bat with the patch, it's straight forward.
C is a high-level language, defined in terms of high-level
semantics rather than machine instructions. C code should be
written where possible using
Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
To come back to the original topic, here is a tentative patch for
better popcount and parity:
* config/avr/t-avr (LIB1ASMFUNCS): Rename _loop_ffsqi2 to
_ffsqi2_nz.
* confif/avr/libgcc.S: Ditto. Rename __loop_ffsqi2 to __ffsqi2_nz.
