On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:57:06PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > The patch hasn't got a lot of testing yet as I'd like to hear your
> > > opinion on the patch first.
> >
> > I am testing it on powerpc. Please also test on x86?
> >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog-signextend-1
> > >
> > > * combine.c (e
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:32:34AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > There may be a slight imprecision in expand_compound_operation.
> > When it encounters a SIGN_EXTEND where it's already known that the
> > sign bit is zero, it may
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> There may be a slight imprecision in expand_compound_operation.
> When it encounters a SIGN_EXTEND where it's already known that the
> sign bit is zero, it may replace that with a ZERO_EXTEND (and
> tries to simplify that further). Ho
f the costs are equal or lower.
Choose the cheapest replacement.
>From a1fca26fcd4df673a6cab0f72dd856acdfeac6d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:05:30 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] combine: Replace sign_extend with zero_extend more often.
1)
expand_compound
