On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:09 PM
>
>> >
>> > Oh I see. Doing it there would mean instead of two independent
>> > operations you'd do the best combination possible, is th
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:09 PM
> >
> > Oh I see. Doing it there would mean instead of two independent
> > operations you'd do the best combination possible, is that right?
>
> Yes (but probably it's not worth the trouble).
I un
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:16 PM
>>
>
>> In general this is impossible to do. I don't have a good answer on
>> how to determine whether (unaligned) load + bswap is faster
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:16 PM
>
> In general this is impossible to do. I don't have a good answer on
> how to determine whether (unaligned) load + bswap is faster than
> doing sth else - but there is a very good chance that the
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> With recent changes to it, the bswap pass can now replace a series of
> (probably aligned) load + bitwise operation (AND, OR and shifts) + casts
> by a (potentially unaligned) load and a bswap. I was rightfully pointed
> o
Hi there,
With recent changes to it, the bswap pass can now replace a series of
(probably aligned) load + bitwise operation (AND, OR and shifts) + casts
by a (potentially unaligned) load and a bswap. I was rightfully pointed
out that this might be more expensive than the original sequence of
gimpl
