[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-07-28 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 HaoChen Gui changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-05-17 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a174dc1a7f2bf0a71475ff633b130a60c0c3ff4a commit r13-582-ga174dc1a7f2bf0a71475ff633b130a60c0c3ff4a Author: Haochen Gui Date: Wed Ma

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-01-14 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #9 from HaoChen Gui --- Add a pattern to convert the plus mode to DI. +(define_insn_and_split "*my_split" + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "gpc_reg_operand") + (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "ca_operand") +

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-01-13 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- Somewhat more constructive... The problem here is that neg isn't pushed "through" isel insns. This in general means you need to negate both inputs to the isel of course, but there are cases where that

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-01-13 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- > Seems cmp+isel on P9 is sub-optimal. For this particular test, perhaps. But it is better overall, at least some years ago. It was benchmarked (with spec), on p9.

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2022-01-05 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 HaoChen Gui changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2020-06-21 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2020-06-21 Thread wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #4 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com --- On 6/19/20 12:43 PM, jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 > > Jens Seifert changed: > > What|Removed |

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2020-06-19 Thread jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 Jens Seifert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2020-06-19 Thread wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than

2020-06-19 Thread wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95737 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- Please test this out of context of a return statement. The problem with unnecessary extends of return values is widely known and not specific to this particular case.