On 14/06/12 19:46, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
Hi,
OK for trunk?
thanks, Dinar.
I'm still not comfortable about the code bloat that this is likely to
incurr at -O2.
R.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Il 12/06/2012 08:52, Dinar
Hi, Richard,
How about if I add and utilize umul_highpart_di to the libgcc
instead of expanding
multiplication for the high part directly, or add my own function with
with pre-shift, post-shift, and
64-bit constant and 64-bit operand as function parameters for division
for less than -O3?
Hi,
OK for trunk?
thanks, Dinar.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Il 12/06/2012 08:52, Dinar Temirbulatov ha scritto:
is safe? That is, that the underflows cannot produce a wrong result?
[snip]
Thanks very much!
Paolo
2012-06-14
Hi, Paolo.
Here is the new version of patch. I have tested this version with gcc
testsuite only on i686 without new regressions, for now. Mips and arm
tests are in progress.
One strange thing I noticed:
No need for this gen_reg_rtx, either, by passing a NULL_RTX target below.
+
Hi,
Here is new version of patch based up on Paolo review, again tested on
arm-7l, mips-32r2 (74k), i686 without new regressions.
thanks, Dinar.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Il 26/05/2012 14:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 07/06/2012 12:21, Dinar Temirbulatov ha scritto:
oh, I found typo in comment in the end of patch. fixed.
Great improvement, thanks!
Unfortunately we're not there yet, but much closer! I could understand
the new code much better so I suggest some more improvements below, both
to the comments
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index 2cecf45..9d6983b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -7131,6 +7131,8 @@ arm_rtx_costs_1 (rtx x, enum rtx_code outer, int*
total, bool speed)
*total = COSTS_N_INSNS (2);
else if
Il 25/05/2012 12:20, Dinar Temirbulatov ha scritto:
+ emit_store_flag_force (c, GT, u0, tmp, mode, 1, 1);
+ emit_store_flag_force (c1, GT, u1, tmp, mode, 1, 1);
+ result = expand_binop (mode, ior_optab, c, c1, cres, 1,
OPTAB_LIB_WIDEN);
+ if (!result)
+ return
Il 26/05/2012 14:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
/* We have to return
z2 + ((u0 + u1) GET_MODE_BITSIZE (word_mode)).
u0 + u1 are the upper two words of the three-word
intermediate result and they could have up to
2 * GET_MODE_BITSIZE
Hi,
I have replaced expand_mult to expand_widening_mult and removed
all direct references to DImode, SImode modes in the
expand_mult_highpart_optab funtion. The attached patch was tested on
arm-7l, mips-32r2 (74k), i686 without new regressions. Richard, do you
think it is ready now?
Hi,
Here is the new version of the patch
I have fixed two errors in the previous version,
on mips32 the compiler could not expand division and terminated
with ICE, this change fixed the issue:
/* Extrating the higher part of the sum */
tmp = gen_highpart (SImode, tmp);
tmp
On 05/22/12 07:05, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
+ if ((size - 1 BITS_PER_WORD
+BITS_PER_WORD == 32 mode == DImode)
Do note that this patch will not go in with hard-coded
SImode and DImode references.
Which, really, you do not even need.
GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) == 2*BITS_PER_WORD
Hi,
Here is updated version of patch. I added comments describing the algorithm.
Hi Dinar. I'm afraid it gives the wrong results for some dividends
* 82625484914982912 / 2023346444509052928: gives 4096, should be zero
* 18317463604061229328 / 2023346444509052928: gives 4109, should be 9
*
On 03/05/12 11:27, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
Hi,
Here is updated version of patch. I added comments describing the algorithm.
Hi Dinar. I'm afraid it gives the wrong results for some dividends
* 82625484914982912 / 2023346444509052928: gives 4096, should be zero
* 18317463604061229328 /
On 04/20/2012 01:57 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
Here is the patch that adds support for divide 64-bit by constant for
32-bit target machines, this patch was tested on arm-7a with no new
regressions, also I am not sure on how to avoid for example i686
targets since div operation there is fast
On 21 April 2012 00:57, Dinar Temirbulatov dtemirbula...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is the patch that adds support for divide 64-bit by constant for
32-bit target machines, this patch was tested on arm-7a with no new
regressions, also I am not sure on how to avoid for example i686
targets
Hi,
Here is the patch that adds support for divide 64-bit by constant for
32-bit target machines, this patch was tested on arm-7a with no new
regressions, also I am not sure on how to avoid for example i686
targets since div operation there is fast compared to over targets and
it showed better
17 matches
Mail list logo
