https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
What about:
movzbl %dil, %eax
negl%eax
andl$743, %eax
That would be 3 cycles, definitely better than the cmov case. maybe one cycle
better than the imul case. It all depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> What about:
> (-B)&743
> Is that faster?
Never mind I see it was not :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What about:
(-B)&743
Is that faster?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
imull on core & zen is 3-4 cycles latency (no idea if they special-case 0 or 1
values somehow, guess not).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-06
Status|UNCONFIRM
