On Jan 27, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> We're still going to need the changes to the heuristic to enable 4 insn
> combinations
Yeah, I’ve love for a masters student to come up with a sane way to do 16 or
less and enhance gcc to do that. Things like, oh, this pattern is a dead end
here
I'm withdrawing the combine_simplify_rtx hunk of this patch. While
working cleaning up my improvements for the remaining of testcases I
stumbled upon a simpler change which covers all the tests.
What's kind of funny is I'd been staring at the relevant code a goodly
part of the weekend without
On 01/27/15 14:21, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:53:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
I do have a specific PR in mind, but I cannot currently find it. It was
about x86, dec mem and then using the flags... Must have sent 100 emails
in that thread... And cannot find it now!
Ar
On 01/27/15 13:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/26/15 22:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:07:29PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
The second change we need is an additional simplification.
If we have
(subreg:M1 (zero_
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:53:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >I do have a specific PR in mind, but I cannot currently find it. It was
> >about x86, dec mem and then using the flags... Must have sent 100 emails
> >in that thread... And cannot find it now!
> Are you referring to 61225?
That is the
On 01/27/15 13:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I mean e.g. DI on a 32-bit target. My worry is that zero_extend:DI then
is more expensive -- if say, it is implemented as a split, combine itself
cannot get rid of the redundancy.
OK. Let me play with that a bit.
Okay, if there are actual real ca
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/26/15 22:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:07:29PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>The second change we need is an additional simplification.
> >>
> >>If we have
> >>(subreg:M1 (zero_extend:M2 (x))
> >>
> >>Where
On 01/26/15 22:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:07:29PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
The second change we need is an additional simplification.
If we have
(subreg:M1 (zero_extend:M2 (x))
Where M1 > M2 and both are scalar integer modes. It's advantageous to
strip the SUBREG a
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:07:29PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> The second change we need is an additional simplification.
>
> If we have
> (subreg:M1 (zero_extend:M2 (x))
>
> Where M1 > M2 and both are scalar integer modes. It's advantageous to
> strip the SUBREG and instead have a wider extension
Segher: I know you're not officially noted as a maintainer or reviewer
for combine.c, but that's something I'd like to change if you're
interested in a larger role. In the mean time, any feedback you have
would be appreciated.
So the issue mentioned in the BZ is that fairly obvious code sequ
10 matches
Mail list logo
