Il 30/03/2012 12:08, Richard Sandiford ha scritto:
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for
Il 10/05/2012 08:45, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 30/03/2012 12:08, Richard Sandiford ha scritto:
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider
On May 4, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Mike Stump schrieb:
On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the machine
mode? Is it QI, is it HI, is it SI or
Mike Stump schrieb:
On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the
machine mode? Is it QI, is it HI, is it SI or whatever?
You can choose to see the complete
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
difference, and add the test case to
On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the
machine mode? Is it QI, is it HI, is it SI or whatever?
You can choose to see the complete expression in its entirety
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
difference, and add the test case to the testsuite.
I
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
difference, and add the test case to the testsuite.
Ian
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
+#define FORCE_LOWERING
Don't think you meant to keep this.
-/* Return whether X is a simple object which we can take a word_mode
- subreg of. */
+static struct {
+
+ /* This pass can transform 4 different operations: move, ashift,
+
Richard,
thanks, for doing the changes.In particular, i did not really
understand how the target stuff was supposed to work.
I have one issue with the changes that you made.
I had actually decided that the speed/size decision was not relevant to
this patch.The problem is that since
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com writes:
What do you think? The patch looks OK to me with these changes,
but I'd like to leave it for 48 hours to see if Ian has any comments.
The patch looks fine to me.
Thanks.
Ian
2012-04-03 Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
Richard,
thanks, for doing the changes.In particular, i did not really
understand how the target stuff was supposed to work.
I have one issue with the changes that you made.
I had actually decided that the speed/size decision was not
This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
splitting wide moves, zero extensions, and shifts, so that it now takes
into
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for zero
+ extension and the shifts. This can be useful when
On 03/30/2012 10:39 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
splitting wide moves, zero extensions,
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for zero
+
ramana
i get the same failure on the trunk without my patch.
kenny
On 03/30/2012 07:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Hi
I have tested this on an x86_64 with both the force lowering on and off and
neither cause any regressions as well as extensive testing on my port.
So, just out of
On 30 March 2012 20:29, Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
ramana
i get the same failure on the trunk without my patch.
In which case I apologise and will file a bug report separately. I
should really have checked :( .
Ramana
kenny
On 03/30/2012 07:36 AM, Ramana
19 matches
Mail list logo
