https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fuz at fuz dot su
--- Comment #8 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #7 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
To wrap this up, confirming that GCC 11 does well on my benchmark:
BM_Chain2054529 iterations 18781 ns/iter GCC 10, asm bsfq
BM_Chain2044584 iterations 22509 ns/ite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #6 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Oh nice! I'll be sure to benchmark when I can get my hands on appropriate
binaries (I typically use gcc-snapshot from Debian).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df569f7da567af4996821dc0a1871eec79957d04
commit r11-194-gdf569f7da567af4996821dc0a1871eec79957d04
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another option would be to fold FFS (x) for x known non-zero into CTZ (x) + 1
in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94956
--- Comment #1 from Steinar H. Gunderson ---
Sorry, truncated the assembler. GCC's is:
atum17:~> objdump --disassemble test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
:
