Hi HJ,
I've checked spec2000 performance.
Only few spec binaries differ. Anyway performance is unchanged.
Thanks,
Evgeny
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:08 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Attached patch switches x86 to TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> The patch builds on the fact that build requires
>> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT = 64 capable host. Taking this in account,
>> noticeable blocks of code can be removed, and all but one
>> immed_double_const can be removed.
>>
>> The only wide-int mode that remains is TImode.
>>
>> 2015-04-30 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
>>
>> * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT): New define.
>> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_legitimate_constant_p): Handle TImode
>> as CONST_WIDE_INT, not CONST_DOUBLE.
>> (ix86_cannot_force_const_mem): Handle CONST_WIDE_INT.
>> (output_pic_addr_const): Do not handle VOIDmode CONST_DOUBLEs.
>> (ix86_find_base_term): Do not check for CONST_DOUBLE.
>> (ix86_print_operand): Do not handle non-FPmode CONST_DOUBLEs.
>> (ix86_build_signbit_mask): Rewrite using wide ints.
>> (ix86_split_to_parts) [HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT < 64]: Remove.
>> (ix86_rtx_costs): Handle CONST_WIDE_INT.
>> (find_constant): Ditto.
>> * config/i386/i386.md (bts, btr, btc peepholes): Rewrite
>> using gen_int_mode.
>> * config/i386/predicates.md (x86_64_immediate_operand)
>> <case CONST_INT>: Remove HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT == 32 code.
>> (x86_64_zext_immediate_operand): Remove CONST_DOUBLE handling.
>> <case CONST_INT>: Remove HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT == 32 code.
>> (const0_operand): Also match const_wide_int.
>> (constm1_operand): Ditto.
>> (const1_operand): Ditto.
>>
>> Patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu
>> {,-m32} and i686-linux-gnu.
>>
>> I won't be able to commit the patch until Monday. H.J., can you please
>> test it on your SPEC testers, so there won't be any surprises w.r.t.
>> performance issues.
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> Can your team run SPEC CPU on this patch?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
