On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 17:50, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> +(define_insn_and_split "*zext_doubleword"
>>> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand"
On 14 Sep 17:50, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> +(define_insn_and_split "*zext_doubleword"
> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> + (zero_extend:DI (match_operand:SWI24 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "rm")))]
> + "!TARGET_64BIT && TARGET_STV && TARGET_SSE2"
> + "#"
> + "&&
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 14 Sep 17:50, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> +(define_insn_and_split "*zext_doubleword"
>> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
>> + (zero_extend:DI (match_operand:SWI24 1 "nonimmediate_operand"
On 09 Sep 10:20, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich
> > wrote:
> >
> > Please depend new changes to insn patterns to TARGET_STV. This way,
> > non-STV compiles will
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 09 Sep 10:20, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Please
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 10:38, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2015 07:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> >>Our of curiosity, what does LLVM do here in terms of
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 21 Aug 10:38, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/21/2015 07:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >>Our of curiosity, what does LLVM do here in terms of costing
>> >>models?
>> >
>> >Unfortunately I have no idea where and how LLVM
On 21 Aug 10:38, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/21/2015 07:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >>Our of curiosity, what does LLVM do here in terms of costing
> >>models?
> >
> >Unfortunately I have no idea where and how LLVM does this
> >optimization. Will try to find out. For now I just try to follow a
>
2015-08-03 23:52 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 06/19/2015 07:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
This patch tries to improve 64bit integer computations on 32bit
target. This is achieved by an additional i386 target pass which
searches for all conversion candidates and tries to
On 08/21/2015 07:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Our of curiosity, what does LLVM do here in terms of costing
models?
Unfortunately I have no idea where and how LLVM does this
optimization. Will try to find out. For now I just try to follow a
common sense and don't hurt any benchmark performance.
On 06/19/2015 07:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
This patch tries to improve 64bit integer computations on 32bit
target. This is achieved by an additional i386 target pass which
searches for all conversion candidates and tries to transform them
into vector mode when profitable.
Presumably
Hi,
Any comments on this?
Thanks,
Ilya
2015-06-19 16:21 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Hi,
This patch tries to improve 64bit integer computations on 32bit target. This
is achieved by an additional i386 target pass which searches for all
conversion candidates and tries
Hi,
This patch tries to improve 64bit integer computations on 32bit target. This
is achieved by an additional i386 target pass which searches for all conversion
candidates and tries to transform them into vector mode when profitable.
Initial problem discussion had several assumptions that
13 matches
Mail list logo