On 04/04/2018 06:43 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 4/4/18 4:06 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> Now that I know how the loads are done, I have a patch should be both
>> correct and generate better code in most cases.
>> It just calculates bitsize inside the loop and does the copying in the
>>
On 4/4/18 4:06 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Now that I know how the loads are done, I have a patch should be both correct
> and generate better code in most cases.
> It just calculates bitsize inside the loop and does the copying in the
> largest mode possible that's equal or less than the bits
.org; nd <n...@arm.com>;
> l...@redhat.com; i...@airs.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies when target
> supports unaligned access [Patch (1/2)]
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:30:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Alan Mod
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:30:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:01:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov
o...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 1:25 PM
To: Richard Biener
Cc: Peter Bergner; Tamar Christina; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd;
l...@redhat.com; i...@airs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies when target supports
unaligned access [Patch (1/2)]
On Tue, Apr 03, 20
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:01:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > >> --- a/gcc/expr.c
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:01:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> > On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > >> --- a/gcc/expr.c
> > >> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
> > >> @@ -2769,7 +2769,9
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >> --- a/gcc/expr.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
> >> @@ -2769,7 +2769,9 @@ copy_blkmode_to_reg (machine_mode mode, tree src)
> >>
> >>n_regs =
On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/expr.c
>> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
>> @@ -2769,7 +2769,9 @@ copy_blkmode_to_reg (machine_mode mode, tree src)
>>
>>n_regs = (bytes + UNITS_PER_WORD - 1) / UNITS_PER_WORD;
>>
On 3/29/18 9:35 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/expr.c
>> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
>> @@ -2769,7 +2769,9 @@ copy_blkmode_to_reg (machine_mode mode, tree src)
>>
>>n_regs = (bytes + UNITS_PER_WORD - 1) / UNITS_PER_WORD;
>>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:27:01PM +, Tamar Christina wrote:
> --- a/gcc/expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
> @@ -2769,7 +2769,9 @@ copy_blkmode_to_reg (machine_mode mode, tree src)
>
>n_regs = (bytes + UNITS_PER_WORD - 1) / UNITS_PER_WORD;
>dst_words = XALLOCAVEC (rtx, n_regs);
> - bitsize
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> >
> > I'd have made it
> >
> > if { ([is-effective-target non_strict_align]
> > && ! ( [istarget ...] || ))
> >
> > thus default it to 1 for non-strict-align targets.
> >
>
> Fair, I've switched it to a black list
Hi Richard,
>
> I'd have made it
>
> if { ([is-effective-target non_strict_align]
> && ! ( [istarget ...] || ))
>
> thus default it to 1 for non-strict-align targets.
>
Fair, I've switched it to a black list and have excluded the only one I know
should not work. Most of the
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see. But then the slow_unaligned_access implementation should use
> > > > non_strict_align as default somehow as SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is
> > > > defaulted to STRICT_ALIGN.
> > > >
> > > > Given that SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS has
> > >
> > > I see. But then the slow_unaligned_access implementation should use
> > > non_strict_align as default somehow as SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is
> > > defaulted to STRICT_ALIGN.
> > >
> > > Given that SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS has different values for different
> > > modes it would also make
; nd <n...@arm.com>; l...@redhat.com;
> > i...@airs.com
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies when target
> > supports unaligned access [Patch (1/2)]
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
gt; Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 08:24
> > > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; l...@redhat.com;
> > > i...@airs.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies wh
nu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; l...@redhat.com;
> > i...@airs.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies when target
> > supports unaligned access [Patch (1/2)]
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All
: Re: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Allow larger copies when target
> supports unaligned access [Patch (1/2)]
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This patch allows larger bitsizes to be used as copy size when the
> > target does not ha
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This patch allows larger bitsizes to be used as copy size
> when the target does not have SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
>
> fun3:
> adrpx2, .LANCHOR0
> add x2, x2, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
> mov x0, 0
> sub sp,
20 matches
Mail list logo
