https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:418b71c0d535bf91df78bad2e198c57934682eaa
commit r13-2048-g418b71c0d535bf91df78bad2e198c57934682eaa
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Mon A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the latest patch for PR 98954 fixes this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Note for rotate it is as simple as:
> (for cmp (eq ne)
> (simplify
> (cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
> (cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
>
> Let me s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for rotate it is as simple as:
(for cmp (eq ne)
(simplify
(cmp (rotate @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
(cmp @0 (rotate @2 @1
Let me see if that is already there or not and test that one out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, if the value range for one MULT_EXPR operand is [0, 1], then it will
never overflow, and is enough to know the other operand is ~[0, 0] and it can
be optimized to the [0, 1] range operand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
if a was signed, then a * 2 == 0 just becomes a == 0 as if a * 2 overflows that
would become undefined
For unsigned, if a has a range of [0,(unsigned)INT_MAX] then a * 2 == 0 can be
optimized to a == 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #4 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ---
FYI, clang-3.6 -O3 seems to do the same optimization on "org.c" as well as on
"opt.c."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
--- Comment #3 from Ishiura Lab Compiler Team ---
Looking only from outside, the two programs are virtually equal, so we
just wondered what hinders the optimization on one of the programs.
The Optimization on "opt.c" seems very strong, so we th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
14 matches
Mail list logo
