On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:20:55AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Our sub3_compare1 pattern is not enough to catch cases where we
> subtract an immediate and compare against in PARALLEL. This is due to the RTL
> canonicalisation rules that require subtractions of immediate IMM be
> rep
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 11/05/17 11:14, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00932.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 21/04/17 09:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Our sub3_compare1 pattern is not enough to catch cases where we subtract
an immediate
and compare ag
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00932.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 21/04/17 09:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Our sub3_compare1 pattern is not enough to catch cases where we subtract
an immediate
and compare against in PARALLEL. This is due to the RTL canonicalisation rules
Hi all,
Our sub3_compare1 pattern is not enough to catch cases where we subtract
an immediate
and compare against in PARALLEL. This is due to the RTL canonicalisation rules
that require
subtractions of immediate IMM be represented as (plus x -IMM).
So we need a bit of trickery to catch those ca
