On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/14 08:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
>> proliferate into the machine description, and before you know where you
>> are the back-end is full of them.
>
> Can't argue wit
On 08/13/14 08:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
proliferate into the machine description, and before you know where you
are the back-end is full of them.
Can't argue with that :-)
I really do think that the best solution would be to
On 08/18/14 04:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 18/08/14 10:19, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 14/08/14 09:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that the
On 18/08/14 10:19, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 14/08/14 09:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
proliferate into the machine des
On 14/08/14 09:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
>>> proliferate into the machine description, and before you know whe
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:45 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>> On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
>>> proliferate into the machine description, and
On 13/08/14 18:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
proliferate into the machine description, and before you know where you
are the back-end is full of them.
Furthermore
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> The problem with the frankenmonster patterns is that they tend to
> proliferate into the machine description, and before you know where you
> are the back-end is full of them.
>
> Furthermore, they are very sensitive to the greedy
On 12/08/14 18:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 12/08/14 16:16, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> On 12/08/14 16:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> On 12/08/14 15:22, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 04:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:16:34PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >I managed to get combine to recognise this pattern:
> >(set (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> > (plus:GPI (xor:GPI (neg:GPI (match_operand:GPI 1
> >"register_operand" "r"))
> > (mat
On 12/08/14 16:16, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 16:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 15:22, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 04:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 16:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 15:22, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 04:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to matc
On 12/08/14 15:22, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 04:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
RTL and it s
On 08/12/14 04:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
RTL and it seems like it would be just a workar
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
The aarch64 target has a conditional negation instruction
CSNEG Rd, Rs1, Rs2, cond
with semantics Rd = if cond then Rs1 else -Rs2.
This, however doesn't get end up getting matched for code such as:
int
foo2 (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
int r = 0;
r =
On 12/08/14 10:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
RTL and it seems like it would be just a workaround to undo the
tree-level transformation
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>> I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
>> RTL and it seems like it would be just a workaround to undo the
>> tree-level transformation.
>
> Yea, it'd just be a work
On 08/11/14 07:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I haven't been able to get combine to match the comparison+xor+neg+plus
RTL and it seems like it would be just a workaround to undo the
tree-level transformation.
Yea, it'd just be a workaround, but it's probably the easiest way to
deal with this problem
19 matches
Mail list logo
