On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Roger Sayle wrote:
Here's version #2 of the patch to recognize bswap32 and bswap64
incorporating your suggestions and feedback. The test cases now confirm
the transformation is applied when int is 32 bits and long is 64 bits,
and should pass otherwise; the patterns now
Hi Jakub and Marc,
Here's version #3 of the patch to recognize bswap32 and bswap64 that
now also implements Jakub's suggestion to support addition and xor in
addition to bitwise ior when recognizing the union of highpart and
lowpart (and two additional tests to check for these variants).
This
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:09:17AM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> +/* Recognize ((T)bswap32(x)<<32)|bswap32(x>>32) as bswap64(x). */
> +(simplify
> + (bit_ior:c
Any reason for supporting bit_ior only? Don't plus:c or bit_xor:c
work the same (i.e. use (for op (bit_ior bit_xor plus) ...)?
Hi Marc,
Here's version #2 of the patch to recognize bswap32 and bswap64
incorporating your
suggestions and feedback. The test cases now confirm the transformation is
applied
when int is 32 bits and long is 64 bits, and should pass otherwise; the
patterns now
reuse (more) capturing groups, and
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, Roger Sayle wrote:
This patch is inspired by a small code fragment in comment #3 of
bugzilla PR rtl-optimization/94804. That snippet appears almost
unrelated to the topic of the PR, but recognizing __builtin_bswap64
from two __builtin_bswap32 calls, seems like a
This patch is inspired by a small code fragment in comment #3 of
bugzilla PR rtl-optimization/94804. That snippet appears almost
unrelated to the topic of the PR, but recognizing __builtin_bswap64
from two __builtin_bswap32 calls, seems like a clever/useful trick.
GCC's optabs.c contains the
