Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 05/05/17 17:10, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > However I think all uses of '*' in md files are incorrect and the
> > feature should
> > be removed. '?' already exists for cases where the alternative may be
> > expensive.
> >
>
> It's not quite as simple as that. I
On 05/05/17 17:10, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
>> While on the subject, why is the w->w operation also hidden?
>
> No idea, this just fixes one case where it is obvious the use of '*' is
> incorrect.
>
> However I think all uses of '*' in md files are incorrect and
Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> While on the subject, why is the w->w operation also hidden?
No idea, this just fixes one case where it is obvious the use of '*' is
incorrect.
However I think all uses of '*' in md files are incorrect and the feature should
be removed. '?' already exists for c
On 26/04/17 13:39, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Float to int moves currently generate inefficient code due to
> hacks used in the movsi and movdi patterns. The 'r = w' variant
> uses '*' which explicitly tells the register allocator to ignore it.
> As a result float to int moves typically spill to the
Float to int moves currently generate inefficient code due to
hacks used in the movsi and movdi patterns. The 'r = w' variant
uses '*' which explicitly tells the register allocator to ignore it.
As a result float to int moves typically spill to the stack, which is
extremely inefficient. For examp
