On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:09 AM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > So, would it be better to represent *bt as
> > (set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
> > (compare:CCC (not:SWI48 (zero_extract:SWI48 ...)) (const_int -1)))
> > rather than
> > (set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
> > (compare:CCC (const_int 0) (zero_ext
> So, would it be better to represent *bt as
> (set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
> (compare:CCC (not:SWI48 (zero_extract:SWI48 ...)) (const_int -1)))
> rather than
> (set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
> (compare:CCC (const_int 0) (zero_extract:SWI48 ...)))
> ?
FWIW the SPARC port uses the former variant wi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:46 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:26:03AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 11:31 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > "For commutative and comparison operators
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:26:03AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 11:31 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > "For commutative and comparison operators, a constant is always made
> > > the second operand."
> >
> > Isn
On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 11:31 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > "For commutative and comparison operators, a constant is always made
> > the second operand."
>
> Isn't that just for commutative comparison operators (eq, ne, ordered,
> unord
On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> "For commutative and comparison operators, a constant is always made
> the second operand."
Isn't that just for commutative comparison operators (eq, ne, ordered,
unordered, ltgt, uneq)? Compare itself even isn't RTX_COMPARE at all,
i
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:40 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled because of RTL represententation
> of bt{l,q} insn followed by e.g. j{c,nc} being misleading to what it
> actually does.
> Let's look e.g. at
> (define_insn_and_split "*jcc_bt"
> [(set (pc)
>
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled because of RTL represententation
of bt{l,q} insn followed by e.g. j{c,nc} being misleading to what it
actually does.
Let's look e.g. at
(define_insn_and_split "*jcc_bt"
[(set (pc)
(if_then_else (match_operator 0 "bt_comparison_operator"
