https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #13 from Alexey Merzlyakov
---
> There is https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/660968.html
> which (though I am not 100% sure) will help the situtation.
Thank you for the reference, this definitely makes sense.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexey Merzlyakov from comment #11)
> Stack usage for this code is being generated later on the "expand" stage
> when we are addressing local D.2333 variable. It means, that probably there
> mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #11 from Alexey Merzlyakov
---
> So I'd first look at why we created an explicit store through memory rather
> than simple x.y assignment like we see for D.19566.first.
For the examples from "Item1" and "Item2", GCC does not gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:529a43109fcd93f5aafda345da14679f538ada86
commit r16-17-g529a43109fcd93f5aafda345da14679f538ada86
Author: Alexey Merzlyakov
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantin.vladimirov@gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.romano at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #7 from Alexey Merzlyakov ---
> For DSE to kick in, I'm pretty sure we'd need to eliminate the memory load
> first. Eliminating the memory load will likely be nontrivial.
For this, I think we could start from loads that was partiall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #5 from Alexey Merzlyakov ---
For "Item3" (extra sign extension): it seem that a slightly more elegant
solution was found - generate sign_extend(plus) + subreg chain during
expand-rtx.
Currently expanding code snippet for umulv4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
Alexey Merzlyakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.merzlyakov at samsung
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just a couple thoughts.
If we look at the .expand dump we have:
(insn 23 22 24 6 (set (mem/c:QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 129 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])) [1 MEM
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
#include
std::pair full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
{ return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108016
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
99% it is a dup of those other bugs.
13 matches
Mail list logo
