https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Created attachment 57993 [details]
> Patch but it does not work for the code in this testcase
>
> I have to look into why it is not working for the testcase in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 57993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57993&action=edit
Patch but it does not work for the code in this testcase
I have to look into why it is not working for the tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #4 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Yes, the integer promotion actually costs some performance. It happens on both
x86 and Arm. Should I file that as a separate bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
One odd thing is that while __builtin_bswap16 is declared as taking an uint16
argument the frontend promotes it to 'int' and that stays that way in GIMPLE:
_16 = (short unsigned int) f$ab_14;
_17 = (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> if (b_13 < h.0_15)
> goto ; [51.12%]
> else
> goto ; [48.88%]
>
>[local count: 548896825]:
> _16 = (short unsigned int) f$ab_14;
> _17 = (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101139
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-20
Assignee|unassigne
