> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:40 PM
> I tried to modify check_effective_target_bswap
> and added:
> + } else {
> + if { [istarget arm*-*-*]
> +&& [check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_v6_or_later
> ob
On 22 October 2014 10:56, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
>> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:03 PM
>> > +typedef int SItype __attribute__ ((mode (SI)));
>> What's the purpose of this? It seems unused.
>
> Sigh. Bad copy/paste from optimize-
> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:03 PM
> > +typedef int SItype __attribute__ ((mode (SI)));
> What's the purpose of this? It seems unused.
Sigh. Bad copy/paste from optimize-bswapsi-1.c
I'll add it to my patch for pr63259.
> I beli
PER_MARKER);
>
> if (type_size < 64 / BITS_PER_MARKER)
> {
>
> regression testsuite run without regression on x86_64-linux-gnu and bswap
> tests all pass on arm-none-eabi target
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
size < 64 / BITS_PER_MARKER)
> {
>
> regression testsuite run without regression on x86_64-linux-gnu and bswap
> tests all pass on arm-none-eabi target
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>> -Original Message-
>&
d bswap tests
all pass on arm-none-eabi target
Is it ok for trunk?
Best regards,
Thomas
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 4:01 PM
> To: Thomas Preud'homme
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Sub
On 26 September 2014 04:25, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:08 PM
>>
>
>> While attempting to try this, I noticed that more precisely the test
>> is currently UNSUPPORTED on aarch64_be,
>> which is beca
> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:08 PM
>
> While attempting to try this, I noticed that more precisely the test
> is currently UNSUPPORTED on aarch64_be,
> which is because check_effective_target_bswap only accepts istarget
> aarc
On 25 September 2014 08:39, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:28 AM
>
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
>>
>> Although I could notice the improvement:
>> Pass disappears [PASS => ]:
>>
> From: Christophe Lyon [mailto:christophe.l...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:28 AM
>
> Hi Thomas,
Hi Christophe,
>
> Although I could notice the improvement:
> Pass disappears [PASS => ]:
> gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-1.c scan-tree-dump-times bswap "32 bit
> b
Hi Thomas,
On 24 September 2014 10:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The fix for PR61306 disabled bswap when a sign extension is detected.
>> However this led to a test case regression (and potential performance
>> regre
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The fix for PR61306 disabled bswap when a sign extension is detected. However
> this led to a test case regression (and potential performance regression) in
> case where a sign extension happens but its effect is canceled
Ping?
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:25 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR63266: Keep track of impa
Hi all,
The fix for PR61306 disabled bswap when a sign extension is detected. However
this led to a test case regression (and potential performance regression) in
case where a sign extension happens but its effect is canceled by other bit
manipulation. This patch aims to fix that by having a sp
14 matches
Mail list logo
