On 11/29/18 10:28, Michael Eager wrote:
On 11/28/18 14:37, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Eager wrote:
On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my
target.
Here i
On 11/30/18 9:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:08:34AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> Sth I don't like very much... maybe we can revisit removing
>>> the few cases in fold-const.c (thus GENERIC folding) and rely
>>> on later GIMPLE passes instead plus on RTL expansion to
>>> do
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:08:34AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Sth I don't like very much... maybe we can revisit removing
> > the few cases in fold-const.c (thus GENERIC folding) and rely
> > on later GIMPLE passes instead plus on RTL expansion to
> > do the reverse transform.
> >
> > Not for GCC
On 11/30/18 12:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
>>> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
>>> Here is the original:
>>>
>>> if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
>>> {
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> > I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> > Here is the original:
> >
> > if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> > {
> > x = x + y;
> > }
> > return x;
On 11/28/18 14:37, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Eager wrote:
On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
Here is the original:
if (cond1 == 2048 ||
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Eager wrote:
>
> On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> >> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> >> Here is the original:
> >>
> >>if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> >>
On 11/28/18 10:47 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
>>> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
>>> Here is the original:
>>>
>>> if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
>>> {
>>> x =
On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
Here is the original:
if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
{
x = x + y;
}
return x;
This ends up generating a series of inst
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> Here is the original:
>
> if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> {
> x = x + y;
> }
> return x;
>
> This ends up generating a series of instructions to compute a f
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
Here is the original:
if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
{
x = x + y;
}
return x;
This ends up generating a series of instructions to compute a flag with
the result of the condition followed by a single comp
11 matches
Mail list logo
