Re: [PATCH] Improve simplify_subreg

2013-05-04 Thread Richard Sandiford
Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Jakub Jelinek writes: >> > When working on PR57130, I've wondered why we don't simplify it much >> > earlier >> > and end up with creating such weirdness. >> > >> > The following patch fixes that, by us

Re: [PATCH] Improve simplify_subreg

2013-05-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > When working on PR57130, I've wondered why we don't simplify it much earlier > > and end up with creating such weirdness. > > > > The following patch fixes that, by using nonzero_bits to see if all the l

Re: [PATCH] Improve simplify_subreg

2013-05-02 Thread Richard Sandiford
Jakub Jelinek writes: > Hi! > > When working on PR57130, I've wondered why we don't simplify it much earlier > and end up with creating such weirdness. > > The following patch fixes that, by using nonzero_bits to see if all the low > bits must be zero and in that case just return zero. > > Bootstr

[PATCH] Improve simplify_subreg

2013-05-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! When working on PR57130, I've wondered why we don't simplify it much earlier and end up with creating such weirdness. The following patch fixes that, by using nonzero_bits to see if all the low bits must be zero and in that case just return zero. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i6