On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 03:07:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2018-05-11 18:44:32.0 +0200
>> > > +++
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 03:07:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2018-05-11 18:44:32.0 +0200
> > > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2018-05-14 13:50:28.100482520 +0200
> > > @@ -19397,11
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2018-05-11 18:44:32.0 +0200
> > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2018-05-14 13:50:28.100482520 +0200
> > @@ -19397,11 +19397,11 @@
> > (set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 2))])
> >
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The last peephole I've recently added is as the testcase shows fundamentally
> incompatible with non-commutative operations, because we need to swap the
> operands.
>
> The pattern right before this one already is:
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The last peephole I've recently added is as the testcase shows fundamentally
> incompatible with non-commutative operations, because we need to swap the
> operands.
>
> The pattern right before this one already is: