On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
2013-03-27 Wei Mi w...@google.com
* config/i386/i386.md: Do shift truncation in define_insn
instead of define_insn_and_split.
Please write ChangeLog as:
* config/i386/i386.md (*ashlmode3_mask): Rewrite as
Thanks for helping fixing it. I will take care to verify regression
and bootstrap before checkin to release branches next time.
Regards,
Wei.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
2013-03-27 Wei Mi
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
I attached the patch.4 based on r197308. r197308 changes shift-and
type truncation from define_insn_and_split to define_insn. patch.4
changes ix86_rtx_costs for shift-and type rtx to get the correct cost
for the result after the
1.c attached.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
I attached the patch.4 based on r197308. r197308 changes shift-and
type truncation from define_insn_and_split to define_insn. patch.4
changes ix86_rtx_costs for shift-and type rtx to get the correct cost
for the
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
I am not familiar how to use define_subst, so I write a patch that
changes define_insn_and_split to define_insn. bootstrapped and
regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
A question is: after that change, Is there anyway I
I am not familiar how to use define_subst, so I write a patch that
changes define_insn_and_split to define_insn. bootstrapped and
regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
A question is: after that change, Is there anyway I can make
targetm.rtx_costs() aware about the truncation, .i.e the
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
I am trying to figure out a way not to lose the opportunity when shift
truncation is not combined in a bit test pattern. Can we keep the
explicit truncation in RTL, but generate truncation code in assembly?
Then only shift
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to figure out a way not to lose the opportunity when shift
truncation is not combined in a bit test pattern. Can we keep the
explicit truncation in RTL, but generate truncation code in assembly?
Then
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
This is the patch to add the shift truncation in
simplify_binary_operation_1. I add a new hook
TARGET_SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED which uses enum rtx_code to decide
whether we can do shift truncation. I didn't use
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
This is the patch to add the shift truncation in
simplify_binary_operation_1. I add a new hook
TARGET_SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED which uses enum rtx_code
I am trying to figure out a way not to lose the opportunity when shift
truncation is not combined in a bit test pattern. Can we keep the
explicit truncation in RTL, but generate truncation code in assembly?
Then only shift truncation which not combined in a bit test
pattershift truncationn
Hi,
On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 21:18 -0700, Wei Mi wrote:
This is the patch to add the shift truncation in
simplify_binary_operation_1. I add a new hook
TARGET_SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED which uses enum rtx_code to decide
whether we can do shift truncation. I didn't use
TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK in
This is the patch to add the shift truncation in
simplify_binary_operation_1. I add a new hook
TARGET_SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED which uses enum rtx_code to decide
whether we can do shift truncation. I didn't use
TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK in simplify_binary_operation_1 because it
uses the macro
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
For the motivational case, I need insn splitting to get the cost
right. insn splitting is not
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
For the motivational case, I need insn splitting to get the cost
right. insn splitting is not very intrusive. All I need is to call
split_insns func.
It may not look very intrusive, but there's a lot happening in the
back ground. You're creating a
Thanks for the helpful comments! I have some replies inlined.
Regards,
Wei.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
This is the fwprop extension patch which is put in order. Regression
test and bootstrap
On 03/10/2013 11:52 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
Hi,
This is the fwprop extension patch which is put in order. Regression
test and bootstrap pass. Please help to review its rationality. The
following is a brief description what I have done in the patch.
In order to make fwprop more effective in rtl
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/10/2013 11:52 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
Hi,
This is the fwprop extension patch which is put in order. Regression
test and bootstrap pass. Please help to review its rationality. The
following is a brief description what I have
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
This is the fwprop extension patch which is put in order. Regression
test and bootstrap pass. Please help to review its rationality. The
following is a brief description what I have done in the patch.
In order to make fwprop more effective in rtl
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
But it is not a good transformation unless we know insn split will
change a (b 63) to a b; Here we want to see what the rtl looks
like after insn splitting in fwprop
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
What do you think?
I think you'll not be able to teach fold_rtx to perform the
transformation you want it to do without having SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED
set for i386. I already tried it the other day, but GCC won't do the
truncation without knowing the
Yes, I agree with you. fold_rtx also needs to be extended because now
it only handles the case similar as follows for shift insn:
a = b op const1
c = a const2
for our motivational case, the second operand of the first insn is a
reg instead of a const. We also need to add the truncation
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
But it is not a good transformation unless we know insn split will
change a (b 63) to a b; Here we want to see what the rtl looks
like after insn splitting in fwprop cost estimation (We call
split_insns in estimate_split_and_peephole(), but not
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
We also take insn splitting and peephole into consideration,
.i.e, the cost of the change is the cost after insn splitting and
peephole which may be applied to the insn changed. This is useful for
the motivational case,
It also goes against
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
We also take insn splitting and peephole into consideration,
.i.e, the cost of the change is the cost after insn splitting and
peephole which may be applied to the
25 matches
Mail list logo
