On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:27 AM
I wouldn't worry about that too much. Indeed the question would be
what
should be canonical on GIMPLE
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:27 AM
I wouldn't worry about that too much. Indeed the question would be
what
should be canonical on GIMPLE (expanders should choose the optimal
vairant from both). I think a tree code should be
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 09:56:51AM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
@@ -2377,11 +2377,16 @@ pass_optimize_bswap::execute (function *fun)
{
gimple src_stmt, cur_stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
tree fndecl =
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
Doesn't it turn 16-bit {L,R}ROTATE_EXPR used alone into
__builtin_bswap16?
For those the question is if the canonical GIMPLE should be the rotation
or
byteswap, I'd think rotation would be perhaps
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:43 PM
Also, perhaps you could short-circuit this if the rotation isn't by constant
Note that do_shift_rotate already check for this. Is it enough?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:39 PM
Doesn't it turn 16-bit {L,R}ROTATE_EXPR used alone into
__builtin_bswap16?
For those the question is if the canonical
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:43 PM
Also, perhaps you could short-circuit this if the rotation isn't by
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:43 PM
