[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-30 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com Target M

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-30 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f4459c478b1c09e4b5e7d629fbf46d2a4fe4560 commit r12-3991-g6f4459c478b1c09e4b5e7d629fbf46d2a4fe4560 Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Thu S

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-30 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7) > > > Created attachment 51496 [details] > > > Prototype patch > > > > +;; c

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-22 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7) > > Created attachment 51496 [details] > > Prototype patch > > +;; convert (sign_extend:WIDE (any_logic:NARROW (memory, imm

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-22 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7) > Created attachment 51496 [details] > Prototype patch +;; convert (sign_extend:WIDE (any_logic:NARROW (memory, immediate))) +;; to (any_logic:WIDE (sign_extend (memor

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-22 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 51496 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51496&action=edit Prototype patch

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-11 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4) > > It looks like there's splitter in aarch64 which combines > > load+xor+zero_extend to zero_extend(mem) + xor, x86 doesn't

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-11 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4) > It looks like there's splitter in aarch64 which combines > load+xor+zero_extend to zero_extend(mem) + xor, x86 doesn't have. The simple > way is to add corresponding

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-08 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu --- aarch64 dump--- Failed to match this instruction: (set (reg:SI 95) (xor:SI (zero_extend:SI (mem/c:QI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 97) (symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])) [

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2021-09-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #3 from Andrew P

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2019-04-04 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- Doesn't aarch64 always implicitly zero-extend when the dest is a 32-bit reg?

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

2019-04-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|