--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-12 20:47
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #12 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:56
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:56:24 2005
New Revision: 108220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108220
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:33
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:33:39 2005
New Revision: 108217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108217
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:32
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:32:34 2005
New Revision: 108216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108216
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Ok (not sure if it really is a good idea to make the *_operand names that
> long),
Mmmh you are right but I couldn't think of a better name that moment.
just I'm afraid ashrdi3_cc_64_and,
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 16:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=10437)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10437&action=view)
gcc41-pr25268.patch
Ok (not sure if it really is a good idea to make the *_operand names that
long), just I'm afr
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 16:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=10435)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10435&action=view)
Patch without testcase
I've bootstrapped the attached patch on s390 and s390x without
testsuite regressions.
T
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 15:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=10434)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10434&action=view)
gcc41-s390-shift-and.patch
How does this patch look like then? Sorry for not waiting for your patch,
but I need
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 12:06 ---
Oops, sorry for not RTFSing before posting the comment here.
All I did was verify that x86_64 doesn't remove useless ANDs.
Should we add new peepholes or insns patterns to i386 for this too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 11:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> BTW, is the s390 hw really masking the shift count with 63 for all insns,
> or just the DImode shifts and with 31 for SImode shifts?
On S/390 all shift count operands are masked with 63. SI
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 08:18 ---
BTW, is the s390 hw really masking the shift count with 63 for all insns,
or just the DImode shifts and with 31 for SImode shifts?
I'd say targets masking the shift count to number of bits of *shift3's
mode is very com
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 14:48 ---
Yeah, making separate
(define_insn "*di3_and_31"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d")
(SHIFT:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "0")
(and:SI (match_operand:SI 2 "shift_c
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 14:33 ---
Shorter testcase:
long long
foo (long long x, int y)
{
return x << ((y + 1) & 63);
}
The count operand of a shift instruction is a somewhat weird
thing on S/390. It is basically an address accepting the sum of
an
13 matches
Mail list logo
