> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:03:03PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Maybe a silly question, but isn't the code only an obfuscation?
> > What about doing:
> >
> > if (__builtin_constant_p(x))
> > return x < 2 ? 0 : __builtin_clz(x);
> >
> > which is fully eliminated in a c.031t.ccp1 pass right
>
> Hello.
>
> Maybe a silly question, but isn't the code only an obfuscation?
> What about doing:
>
> if (__builtin_constant_p(x))
> return x < 2 ? 0 : __builtin_clz(x);
>
> which is fully eliminated in a c.031t.ccp1 pass right after einline happens
> for a call context where 'x' is a
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:03:03PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Maybe a silly question, but isn't the code only an obfuscation?
> What about doing:
>
> if (__builtin_constant_p(x))
> return x < 2 ? 0 : __builtin_clz(x);
>
> which is fully eliminated in a c.031t.ccp1 pass right after einline
On 10/21/20 5:11 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
return ( __builtin_constant_p((size) - 1) ? ( __builtin_constant_p((size) - 1)
? ( ((size) - 1) < 2 ? 0 : ((size) - 1) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : ((size) - 1) &
(1ULL << 62) ? 62 : ((size) - 1) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : ((size) - 1) & (1ULL <<
60) ? 60 : ((size) -
Hi,
this patch implements heuristics that increases inline limits (by the hints
mechanism) for inline functions that use builtin_constant_p on parameter. Those
are very likely intended to be always inlined and simplify after inlining.
The PR is about a function that we used to inline with
