Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-13 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: The info is in here https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no longer generate smulbb etc instructions, which

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-13 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
Hi all, On 13/01/16 01:40, Jim Wilson wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Kugan wrote: Yes, making PROMOTE_MODE to work the same way as in promote_function_mode in arm will fix this. Can you please point me to the test cases that are regressing so that I

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> >>> The info is in here >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 01/13/2016 03:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: The info is in here https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Jim Wilson
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote: > The info is in here > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 > See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no longer > generate smulbb etc instructions, which are 16x16=32 expanding > multiplies

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:04:22PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > >2016-01-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah > > > >* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Fix promoted sign in SUBREG_PRMOTED I'd like to just point at the ChangeLog typo - PRMOTED instead of PROMOTED. Jakub

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 12/01/16 12:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:04:22PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: 2016-01-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Fix promoted sign in SUBREG_PRMOTED I'd like to just point at the ChangeLog typo - PRMOTED

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
Hi Kugan, On 12/01/16 06:22, kugan wrote: When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714. _8 = fn1D.5055 (); f_13 = _8; function returns -15 and in _8 it is sign extended. In the second statement, we say

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Jim Wilson
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22 PM, kugan wrote: > When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign > differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714. > This is similar to PR65932 where sign change in PROMOTE_MODE causes problem >

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Kugan
On 13/01/16 10:19, Jim Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22 PM, kugan > wrote: >> When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign >> differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714. > >> This is similar to PR65932

Re: [RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-12 Thread Jim Wilson
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Kugan wrote: > Yes, making PROMOTE_MODE to work the same way as in > promote_function_mode in arm will fix this. Can you please point me to > the test cases that are regressing so that I can also start looking at them. The info

[RFC][ARM][PR67714] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

2016-01-11 Thread kugan
When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714. _8 = fn1D.5055 (); f_13 = _8; function returns -15 and in _8 it is sign extended. In the second statement, we say that the value is SUBREG_PROMOTED and