On 14/08/2019 08:48, Eric Botcazou wrote:
[Sorry for the delay, I missed your question...]
Interesting. Does it work for the general case of a reverse subtract,
which I need to handle as wel?
Not clear, Visium only uses it for SNE and combined NEG/SNE.
I worked through the logic. I'm
[Sorry for the delay, I missed your question...]
> Interesting. Does it work for the general case of a reverse subtract,
> which I need to handle as wel?
Not clear, Visium only uses it for SNE and combined NEG/SNE.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:03 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2019 18:39, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:49:17PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>> On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> What's wrong with describing the
On 06/08/2019 18:30, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Why is it incorrect? It's not canonical, sure. But the cannonical form
>> does NOT describe what the instruction does.
>
> Yes, you run into this when you try to be clever with the carry. For the
> Visium port I kludged around it by using:
>
>
On 06/08/2019 18:39, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:49:17PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> What's wrong with describing the canonical form in your MD? You'll need
>> some reversed condition code
Hello!
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:49:17PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> >>>What's wrong with describing the canonical form in your MD? You'll need
>> >>>some reversed condition code thingy, but that's it?
>> >>
>> >>It doesn't
> Why is it incorrect? It's not canonical, sure. But the cannonical form
> does NOT describe what the instruction does.
Yes, you run into this when you try to be clever with the carry. For the
Visium port I kludged around it by using:
[(set (reg:CCC R_FLAGS)
(compare:CCC (not:I
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:49:17PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>What's wrong with describing the canonical form in your MD? You'll need
> >>>some reversed condition code thingy, but that's it?
> >>
> >>It doesn't describe what the
On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:22:48PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 06/08/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
Arm has an instruction that performs
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:22:48PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/08/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Hi Richard,
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>Arm has an instruction that performs the following operation:
> >>
>
On 06/08/2019 17:22, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 06/08/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
Arm has an instruction that performs the following operation:
(parallel [
(set (reg:CC 100 cc)
On 06/08/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
Arm has an instruction that performs the following operation:
(parallel [
(set (reg:CC 100 cc)
(compare:CC (const_int 0 [0])
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Arm has an instruction that performs the following operation:
>
> (parallel [
> (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
> (compare:CC (const_int 0 [0])
> (reg:SI 121)))
> (set (reg:SI
13 matches
Mail list logo
