Hi Graham,
On Mon, 2017-06-12 11:40:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-12 20:14:23 +0100, Graham Markall
> wrote:
> > Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and
> > ashift (as opposed to plus and mult which it previously used to do), it
> > no longer c
On Fri, 2017-05-12 20:14:23 +0100, Graham Markall
wrote:
> Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and
> ashift (as opposed to plus and mult which it previously used to do), it
> no longer creates *add_n or *sub_n insns, as the patterns match plus and
> mult only. The outc
Hi
It looks alright. No questions to ask, if you need me to upstream it
please ping me.
Cheers,
Claudiu
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Graham Markall
wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> I ran the gcc testsuite with EZsim for NPS-400:
>
> $ ./EZsim_linux_x86_64 --version
> NPS-400 EZsim - Version 1.9
Hi Claudiu,
I ran the gcc testsuite with EZsim for NPS-400:
$ ./EZsim_linux_x86_64 --version
NPS-400 EZsim - Version 1.9a ( 35b02d7, Nov 3 2015, 20:14:04 )
both with and without the patch, and it did not introduce any new failures.
Best regards,
Graham.
On 15/05/17 17:48, Claudiu Zissul
Hi Graham,
May I ask if you tested this with gcc's dejagnu?
Thanks,
Claudiu
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Graham Markall
wrote:
> Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and
> ashift (as opposed to plus and mult which it previously used to do), it
> no longer creates
Since the combine pass canonicalises shift-add insns using plus and
ashift (as opposed to plus and mult which it previously used to do), it
no longer creates *add_n or *sub_n insns, as the patterns match plus and
mult only. The outcome of this is that some opportunities to generate
add{1,2,3} and s
