https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So are the upper bits for SPARC completely undefined? That would then be the
> major distinction between MIPS and SPARC. The upper bits are defined for MIPS
On the contrary, they are always defined since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #10 from Matthew Fortune ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > This is a notoriously hard topic to address. All instructions affect the
> > full 64-bit register including those that do 32-bit arithmetic i.e. they
> > wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This is a notoriously hard topic to address. All instructions affect the
> full 64-bit register including those that do 32-bit arithmetic i.e. they
> will set/clear the upper bits to replicate bit-31.
So t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Fortune ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > I'm yet to get my head around what the issue is but if anyone has a pointer
> > based on the potential impact on MIPS64 as described above then I'd be
> > gra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> There is a reasonable chance that this patch broke mips64 n64 but I do not
> have confirmation yet. See PR target/78660.
The quoted hunk only reverted a recent pessimization (r205550), the current
code is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
Matthew Fortune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 11 22:38:33 2016
New Revision: 242326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/59461
* doc/rtl.texi (paradoxical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
> loads as well.
Not for this testcase at least, where the code is (and has always been)
optimal:
ee_isdigit2:
.LFB0:
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder if x86_64 is also affected as it has implicitely zero/sign-extending
loads as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo
