Hi!
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 07:57:51AM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:42:25PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > > This patch implements some additional zero-extension and
> > > sign-extension related optimizations in simplify-rtx.cc. The original
> > > motivation comes from
"Roger Sayle" writes:
> This patch implements some additional zero-extension and sign-extension
> related optimizations in simplify-rtx.cc. The original motivation comes
> from PR rtl-optimization/71775, where in comment #2 Andrew Pinski sees:
>
> Failed to match this instruction:
> (set (reg:DI
Hi Segher,
> > > To implement this, and some closely related transformations, we
> > > build upon the existing val_signbit_known_clear_p predicate. In the
> > > first chunk, nonzero_bits knows that FFS and ABS can't leave the
> > > sign-bit bit set,
> >
> > Is that guaranteed in all cases? Also
Hi Segher,
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:42:25PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > This patch implements some additional zero-extension and
> > sign-extension related optimizations in simplify-rtx.cc. The original
> > motivation comes from PR rtl-optimization/71775, where in comment #2
> Andrew Pin
Hi!
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:42:25PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> This patch implements some additional zero-extension and sign-extension
> related optimizations in simplify-rtx.cc. The original motivation comes
> from PR rtl-optimization/71775, where in comment #2 Andrew Pinski sees:
>
> Faile
This patch implements some additional zero-extension and sign-extension
related optimizations in simplify-rtx.cc. The original motivation comes
from PR rtl-optimization/71775, where in comment #2 Andrew Pinski sees:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:DI 88 [ _1 ])
(sign_extend:DI (s
