I'd like to ping this patch 1 of 2 that removes redundant zero/sign
extension using value range information.
Bootstrapped and no new regression for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
Thanks you for your time.
Kugan
n 14/08/13 16:49, Kugan wrote:
Hi Richard,
Here
I'd like to ping this patch 2 of 2 that removes redundant zero/sign
extension using value range information.
Bootstrapped and no new regression for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
Thanks you for your time.
Kugan
On 14/08/13 16:59, Kugan wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thank
Thanks Richard for reviewing.
On 02/09/13 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kugan wrote:
On 17/06/13 18:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote:
+/* Extract the value range of assigned exprassion for GIMPLE_ASSIGN stmt.
+ If the extracted
On 06/09/13 16:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On 9/3/13 2:15 PM, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for reviewing.
On 02/09/13 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kugan
wrote:
On 17/06/13 18:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Kugan wrote:
+/* Extract the value
On 09/09/13 19:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Kugan wrote:
On 06/09/13 16:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On 9/3/13 2:15 PM, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for reviewing.
On 02/09/13 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kugan
wrote:
On 17/06
On 10/09/13 22:47, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
On 09/09/13 19:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Kugan
wrote:
On 06/09/13 16:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On 9/3/13 2:15 PM, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for reviewing.
On 02/09/13 22:15
is bigger than
max double_int, then it is [min,+infinity] merged with [-infinity,max] range
(i.e. -[max+1,min-1])?
Ok, I will change this too.
Thanks,
Kugan
Micha just suggested
union vrp_info_type {
/* Pointer attributes used for alias analysis. */
struct GTY ((tag ("0&q
.
Is this Ok,
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-09-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * cfgexpand.c (maybe_dump_rtl_for_gimple_stmt) : Add range to dump.
+ * gimple-pretty-print.c (print_double_int) : New function.
+ * gimple-pretty-print.c (dump_gimple_phi) : Dump range info
Hi,
Updated the patch to the latest changes in trunk that splits tree.h. I
also noticed an error in printing double_int and fixed it.
Is this OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-09-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * cfgexpand.c (maybe_dump_rtl_for_gimple_stmt) : Add range to dump
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 16/09/13 23:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
Hi,
Updated the patch to the latest changes in trunk that splits tree.h. I also
noticed an error in printing double_int and fixed it.
Is this OK?
print_gimple_stmt (dump_file
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 18/09/13 18:55, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 16/09/13 23:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
[Snip]
+2013-09-17 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * gimple-pretty
On 24/09/13 19:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I have committed it for you (rev 202831), with a few modifications
(ChangeLog formatting, typos).
Here is what I have committed:
2013-09-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* gimple-pretty-print.c
Hi,
I am attaching a patch that reverts Split shift di patterns (r197527) as
it introduced PR58578. I am also attaching a patch to add a testcase
based on this failiures.
No regression on qemu for arm-none-eabi and new testcase now passes.
Is this OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b
Ping~
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-09-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * dojump.c (do_compare_and_jump): Generate rtl without
+ zero/sign extension if redundant.
+ * cfgexpand.c (expand_gimple_stmt_1): Likewise.
+ * gimple.c (gimple_assign_is_zero_sign_ext_redundant) : New
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
Thanks,
Kugan
> +2013-09-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> +
> + * dojump.c (do_compare_and_jump): Generate rtl without
> + zero/sign extension if redundant.
> +
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 15/10/13 23:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Kugan wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Can you please help to review this patch?
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
>
> I think that gimple_assig
The same applies to signed types if you do not want to rely
> on signed overflow being undefined of course.
>
Thanks for the explanation. I now get it and I will rework the patch.
Thanks,
Kugan
K?
Thanks,
Kugan
2013-10-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* gcc.target/arm/neon-vcond-ltgt.c: Scan for vbsl or vbit or vbif.
* gcc.target/arm/neon-vcond-unordered.c: Scan for vbsl or vbit or vbif.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/neon-vcond-ltgt.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.targe
de=arm
--with-arch=armv5te --with-float=soft
You can also find the logs here in
http://cbuild.validation.linaro.org/build/gcc-linaro-4.8-2013.10/logs/armv7l-precise-cbuild461-calxeda02_21_00_precise_armel-armv5r2/
I changed neon-vcond-gt.c too.
Thanks,
Kugan
2013-10-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
On 25/10/13 19:04, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> On 24/10/13 20:03, Kugan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kyrill,
>>
>> It happens for armv5te arm-none-linux-gnueabi. --with-mode=arm
>> --with-arch=armv5te --with-float=soft
>
> Ah ok, I can reproduce it now. So, while I agree th
Hi,
There is a redundant unshare_expr in ipa-prop. Attached patch removes
it. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no
new regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_set_jf_constant
This issue also remains in 4.9 and 5.0 branches. Is this OK to backport
to the release branches.
Thanks,
Kugan
On 02/12/15 10:00, Kugan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>>
&g
On 12/02/16 17:18, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
On 2016.02.08 at 09:49 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/18/2016 08:52 PM, Kugan wrote:
2016-01-19 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR middle-end/66726
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_range_tests): Handle tcc_compare stmt
whose
Hi,
This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x + (-y * z * z) => x - y
* z * z as reported in PR40921.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for next stage1?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandara
Hi,
This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x+x+x+x -> 4*x as
reported in PR63586.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for next stage1?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandara
doing any modification to the ops vector.
Hi Richard,
Is the attached patch looks better?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
index e69de29..a002bdd 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.d
the updated patch along what you suggested. Does this
look better ?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index 17eb64f..bbb5ffb 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
@@ -4674,6 +4674,41 @@ attempt_builtin_powi (gimple *stmt, vec
*ops
added a check at determine_locally_known_aggregate_parts to detect
this. This fixes the testcase and passes x86-64-linux-gnu lto bootstrap
and regression testing with no new regression. Does this look sensible
place to fix this?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-03-01 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
On 27/11/13 02:07, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 23/11/13 01:54, Kugan wrote:
[snip]
>> +2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>> +
>> +* libgcc/config/arm/pbapi-lib.h (HAVE_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for
>
> It's bpabi-lib.h
Thanks for the review.
>> +
ping
Thanks,
Kugan
On 27/11/13 15:30, Kugan wrote:
> On 27/11/13 02:07, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 23/11/13 01:54, Kugan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> +2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>> +
>>> + * libgcc/config/arm/pbapi-lib.h (HAVE_NO_
and prompts upgradation. Is
this Ok?
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-12-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+ * configure.ac: Add checks for aarch64 assembler -mabi support.
+ * configure: Regenerate.
+
diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
index fdf0cd0..17b6e85 100755
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc
igned types if you do not want to rely
>> on signed overflow being undefined of course.
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I now get it and I will rework the patch.
>
I have attempted to implement what Richard suggested. If you think this
is what you want, I will go ahead and implemen
ption],
>> + gcc_cv_as_aarch64_mabi,,
>> + [-mabi=lp64], [.text],,,)
>> +if test x$gcc_cv_as_aarch64_mabi = xno; then
>> +AC_MSG_ERROR([Assembler support for -mabi=lp64 is required.
>> Upgrade the Assembler.])
>> +fi
>> +;;
>> +
&
ested gcc for -mabi=lp64
(compiles) and -mabi=ilp32 (compiles)
b. Bootstrap with --with-multilibs-list=lp64,ilp32 works and tested
gcc for -mabi=lp64
compiles and -mabi=ilp32 compiles(* gives linker error in my setup -
aarch64:ilp32 architecture of input file `/tmp/ccIFqSxU.o'
ther areas of configure.ac, it seems using a similar indent convention
> as in .c files.
>
Thanks Yufeng. I have updated the patch based on the comments above.
Marcus, is this OK for trunk now?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
+2013-12-11 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+ * configure.ac: Add che
ping ?
I have reorganised the last patch and now handling only
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR. Once it is reviewed and
necessary changes are made, I will address the other cases as a separate
patch (when it reaches that stage).
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
+2014-01-07 Kugan
On 07/01/14 23:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Kugan wrote:
[snip]
> Note that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is wrong here. I think you are
> handling this wrong still. From a quick look you want to avoid
> the actual promotion for
>
> reg_1 =
>
> when re
. Tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu with no new
regressions. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
+2013-10-15 Matthew Gretton-Dann
+ Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ PR target/59588
+ * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_build_constant): Fix incorrect
+ truncation.
+
gcc
On 13/01/14 21:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 11/01/14 23:42, Kugan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> aarch64_build_constant incorrectly truncates the immediate when
>> constants are generated with MOVN. This causes coinor-osi tests to fail
>> (tracked also in https://b
On 08/07/15 00:41, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 06:50 AM, Kugan wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments above in the
>> attached patch.
>>
>> I have one question with respect to unary operation. For generic unary
>> operation
On 11/07/15 06:40, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 05:08 PM, Kugan wrote:
>
>> Done. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64-none-linux-gnu with
>> no new regressions. Is this OK for trunk?
> Thanks for the additional testcases.
>
>
>
>> + else
present. Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-07-15 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR middle-end/66726
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_range_tests): Handle sinking the cast
after PHI.
(final_range_test_p): Detect sinking the cast after PHI
ce that issue is addressed, this will be good for the trunk.
>
Thanks for the review. How about:
- if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
- || TREE_CODE (rhs) != SSA_NAME
- || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (rhs)) != BOOLEAN_TYPE)
+ if (gimple_assign_cast_p (stmt)
+ && (!INTEGRA
Ping?
On 28/06/15 21:30, Kugan wrote:
> This patch sets REG_EQUAL when emitting arm_emit_movpair.
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-06-26 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>
> * gcc.target/arm/reg_equal_test.c: New test.
>
> gcc.
>
x27;s scripts
with no new regression.
(http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/225987-reg4/report-build-info.html)
Is this OK for trunk,
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-07-20 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* cse.c (cse_insn): Fix missing chec
On 27/07/15 05:38, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Kugan writes:
>
>> * cse.c (cse_insn): Fix missing check for STRICT_LOW_PART and minor
>> clean up.
>
> This breaks
>
> gcc.target/m68k/tls-ie-xgot.c scan-assembler jsr __m68k_read_tp
> gcc.target
On 24/07/15 05:05, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 11:52 PM, Kugan wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
>>>> index 932c83a..3058eb5 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
>>>> ++
On 27/07/15 05:38, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Kugan writes:
>
>> * cse.c (cse_insn): Fix missing check for STRICT_LOW_PART and minor
>> clean up.
>
> This breaks
>
> gcc.target/m68k/tls-ie-xgot.c scan-assembler jsr __m68k_read_tp
> gcc.target
mpare-1.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors)
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030729-1.c scan-tree-dump-times dom2 "\\(unsigned int\\)"
0
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr54245.c scan-tree-dump-times slsr "Inserting initializer"
0
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/shorten-1.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "\\(int\\)"
nal.c:4524
Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrapped and regression tested for
aarch64-none-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-10-02 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* config/aarch64/iterators.md: Add missing core element mode for
mode.
gcc
On 05/10/15 21:33, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:41:20PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In "aarch64_get_lane" operand 0 is VEL, so for %0,
>> iterator vwcore should (?) support all the modes in VEL.
>>
>> Ran into follow
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 15/09/15 23:08, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Kugan wrote:
This patch tree-vrp handling and optimization for ZEXT_EXPR.
+ else if (code == SEXT_EXPR)
+{
+ gcc_assert (range_int_cst_p (&vr1));
+ unsigned int
can use DECL_VALUE_EXPR to fixup
the IL, not sure. Or we can do this in the promotion pass as well.
I will try doing this see if I can do this.
Thanks,
Kugan
Richard.
Jim
On 07/10/15 19:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:12 AM, kugan
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 15/09/15 23:08, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:58 AM,
min)));
> + wide_int mask = wi::shwi (((1ULL << (prec - 1)) - 1),
> + TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (vr0.max)));
>
> this has the same host precision issues of 1ULL (HOST_WIDE_INT).
> There is wi::mask, eventually you can use
On 15/09/15 23:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Kugan
> wrote:
>>
>> This patch adds support for new tree code SEXT_EXPR.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> index d567a87..bbc3c10 100644
> --- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> +
On 15/09/15 22:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Kugan
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 07/09/15 23:20, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, Kugan wrote:
>>>
>>&g
On 12/10/15 23:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kugan
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/09/15 23:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Kugan
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch
On 07/09/15 12:56, Kugan wrote:
>
> This pass applies type promotion to SSA names in the function and
> inserts appropriate truncations to preserve the semantics. Idea of this
> pass is to promote operations such a way that we can minimize generation
> of subreg in RTL, that in
}
>
> which is in place to ensure the debug insns are "valid" in some form(?)
> On what kind of insn does the assert trigger with your patch so that
> you have to remove it?
Thanks for the review. Please find the attached patch this removes it
and does the conve
On 07/09/15 12:53, Kugan wrote:
>
> This a new version of the patch posted in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00226.html. I have done
> more testing and spitted the patch to make it more easier to review.
> There are still couple of issues to be addressed and
On 21/10/15 23:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Kugan
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/09/15 12:53, Kugan wrote:
>>>
>>> This a new version of the patch posted in
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00226.html.
On 23/10/15 01:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Kugan
wrote:
On 21/10/15 23:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Kugan
wrote:
On 07/09/15 12:53, Kugan wrote:
This a new version of the patch posted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On 29/10/15 02:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, kugan
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/15 01:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Kugan
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
assign_rhs_code (stmt);
>
> I think the description can be improved. This is about stray bits set
> beyond the original type, correct?
>
> Please use NOP_EXPR wherever you use CONVERT_EXPR right how.
>
> + if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code)
> +
moment their handling is interwinded with the def
> promotion
> code. That makes the whole thing hard to follow.
I have updated the comments with:
+/* Promote constants in STMT to TYPE. If PROMOTE_COND_EXPR is true,
+ promote only the constants in conditions part of the COND_EXPR.
+
+
default (even though the patch as it stands
enabled by default - I am doing it for testing purposes).
Thanks,
Kugan
>From 8e71ea17eaf6f282325076f588dbdf4f53c8b865 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:53:56 +1100
Subject: [PATC
a non-variadic function and will return the value in
floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be
doing sibcall here.
Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing.
Is this OK if no issues with the testing?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/Change
On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan wrote:
>
>> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect".
>>
>> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard.
>
On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan wrote:
>
>> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect".
>>
>> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard.
>
On 17/11/15 21:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Kugan,
>
> It does look like an issue.
>
> Please open a bug report.
>
>>
>>
>> On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote:
>>> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan
>>> wrote:
>&g
> Hi Ramana,
>
> Thanks for the review. I have opened a gcc bug-report for this. I tested
> the attached patch for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no new regressions. Is this OK?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
Hi Richard,
Thanks for you comments. I am attaching an updated patch with details
below.
On 19/11/15 02:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Attache
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>
>> PR target/68390
>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type
>> for indirect function call.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
; With this patch we won't ICE (and PRE should clean this up anyway), but I
> don't know,
> maybe I should try harder to optimize even this problematical case (not sure
> how hard
> it would be...)?
Hi Marek,
Thanks for fixing this. Yes, we can try remove the PHI in
factor_out_c
://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714. I don't think
there is any agreement on this. Or is there any better place to fix this?
Thanks,
Kugan
bdata->sccs_to_merge, component))
+cbdata->alias_ddrs->safe_splice (edata->alias_ddrs);
+}
+
+/* This is the main function breaking strong conected components in
+ PARTITIONS giving reduced depdendence graph RDG and data dependences
+ in DDR_TABLE. Store data dependence relation
On 06/08/14 23:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Kugan
> wrote:
>> On 06/08/14 22:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 04:17:41PM +0200, Richard Biener wr
requested there in the PR, I am sending this patch to add the test-case
to test-suite.
Is this OK ?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite
2014-08-09 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR tree-optimization/52904
* gcc.dg/PR52904.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/PR52904.c b/gcc
On 11/08/14 18:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kugan
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
>>
>> Tescase was generating warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur
>> when simplifying
>>
>> Is this OK?
>
> Err.
>
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +
>
> Excessive vertical space
>
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-Wstrict-overflow -O2" } */
> +/* { dg-bogus "assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying&quo
MD registers so the vector variant must be
split.
+(define_insn_and_split "*xor_one_cmpl3"
+ [(set (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "=r,w")
+(not:GPI (xor:GPI (match_operand:GPI 1 "register_operand" "r,?w")
Hi Alan,
Is
On 27/08/14 20:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> 2014-08-07 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>
>> * calls.c (precompute_arguments): Check
>> promoted_for_signed_and_unsigned_p and set the promoted mode.
>> (promoted_for_signed_and_unsigned_p): New func
On 27/08/14 23:02, Kugan wrote:
> On 27/08/14 20:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>>> 2014-08-07 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>>
>>> * calls.c (precompute_arguments): Check
>>> promoted_for_signed_and_unsigned_p and set the promoted mode.
>
On 28/08/14 16:44, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Kugan wrote:
>
>> On 27/08/14 23:02, Kugan wrote:
>>> On 27/08/14 20:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>>> 2014-08-07 Kugan Vivekanand
On 27/08/14 20:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>>> 2014-08-07 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>>
>>> * calls.c (precompute_arguments): Check
>>> promoted_
ld need is VRP computing value-ranges in the promoted
> mode from the start (and it doesn't do that).
Hi Richard,
Here is an attempt to do the value range computation in promoted_mode's
type when it is overflowing. Bootstrapped on x86-84.
Based on your feedback, I will do
idence. Can we rely on this?
Is there anyway we can fix this?
Thanks again,
Kugan
regression tested on x86_64 and arm.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite
2014-09-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR target/43550
* gcc.target/arm/pr43550.c: New test.
gcc/
2014-09-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR target/43550
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_bswap): Generate promoted
e overflow/wrap around. Will that be something
acceptable?
Thanks again,
Kugan
better for processor without hw divide instruction.
On a chromebook, when K is large (close to 64) this performs on an
average ~10% faster. When K is small (8 to 24), it performs about ~100%
faster on an average.
Regression tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no issues.
OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
Hi All,
This RFC patch series implements a simple align divisor shift dividend
method.
Regression tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no issues.
OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * libgcc/libgcc2.c (__udivmoddi4): Define new implementation when
Hi All,
This RFC patch enables new divide algorithm for ARMV7-A
Regression tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no issues.
OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * libgcc/config/arm/pbapi-lib.h (HAVE_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for
+ __ARM_ARCH_7_A__.
+
diff --git
On 24/11/13 02:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Kugan writes:
>
>> This RFC patch series implements a simple align divisor shift dividend
>> method.
>>
>> Regression tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no issues.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> Than
re are no mrc/mcr versions of these
instructions in thumb1. So these should be conditional on not being
ARM_THUMB1.
Is this OK. Regression tested with no new refression on qemu for
arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv7-a and on arm-none-linux-gnueabi
--with-mode=thumb and -march=armv5t.
Is this OK?
Th
r0, lsr #1
eorne r0, r0, #2
movne r0, r0, lsr #1
orrne r0, r0, #32768
- andsr3, r3, #255
+ subsr2, r2, #1
bne .L3
bx lr
Tested both patches on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no new regressions. Is this OK?
Thanks,
Kugan
Changes the the SUBREG flags to be able to set promoted for sign
(SRP_SIGNED), unsigned (SRP_UNSIGNED), sign and unsigned
(SPR_SIGNED_AND_UNSIGNED) in SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR_P.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
2014-06-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* gcc/calls.c (precompute_arguments): Use new
Sets proper flags on the SUBREG based on value
range info and enables elimination of zext/sext when possible.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
2014-06-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* gcc/calls.c (precompute_arguments: Check is_promoted_for_type
and set the promoted mode
TED_UNSIGNED_P(RTX) \
RTL_FLAG_CHECK1 ("SUBREG_PROMOTED_UNSIGNED_P", (RTX),
SUBREG)->volatil)\
+ (RTX)->unchanging) == 0) ? -1 : ((RTX)->volatil == 1))
Am I missing anything here? Please let me know. I am attaching the patch
based on this with your other
On 24/06/14 22:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:53:35PM +1000, Kugan wrote:
>> 2014-06-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>>
>> * gcc/calls.c (precompute_arguments: Check is_promoted_for_type
>> and set the promoted mode.
>> (is_
1 - 100 of 563 matches
Mail list logo
