On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:33 AM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 28/09/18 09:11, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Yes, thanks.
>
> Committed.
>
> Thanks for all the reviews. :-)
>
This caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89445
--
H.J.
On 28/09/18 09:11, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Yes, thanks.
Committed.
Thanks for all the reviews. :-)
Andrew
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 27/09/18 17:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> But we wouldn't recurse for PRE_INC, MEM or ASM_OPERANDS, since they
>> have the wrong rtx class. AFAICT no current unary, binary or ternary
>> operator has that level of side-effect (and that's a good thing).
>
> OK, in that
On 27/09/18 17:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
But we wouldn't recurse for PRE_INC, MEM or ASM_OPERANDS, since they
have the wrong rtx class. AFAICT no current unary, binary or ternary
operator has that level of side-effect (and that's a good thing).
OK, in that case I'll remove it and we can cro
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 27/09/18 08:16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> On keeping the complexity down:
>>
>>if (side_effects_p (x))
>> return NULL_RTX;
>>
>> makes this quadratic for chains of unary operations. Is it really
>> needed? The code after it simply recurses on operands and
On 27/09/18 08:16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
On keeping the complexity down:
if (side_effects_p (x))
return NULL_RTX;
makes this quadratic for chains of unary operations. Is it really
needed? The code after it simply recurses on operands and doesn't
discard anything itself, so it looks
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 26/09/18 17:48, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Andrew Stubbs writes:
>>> + /* Nested vec_merge. */
>>> + rtx nvm = gen_rtx_VEC_MERGE (mode, vm1, vm2, mask1);
>>> + ASSERT_EQ (vm1, simplify_merge_mask (nvm, mask1, 0));
>>> + ASSERT_EQ (vm2, simplify_merge_mask (nvm, ma
On 26/09/18 17:48, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Stubbs writes:
+ /* Nested vec_merge. */
+ rtx nvm = gen_rtx_VEC_MERGE (mode, vm1, vm2, mask1);
+ ASSERT_EQ (vm1, simplify_merge_mask (nvm, mask1, 0));
+ ASSERT_EQ (vm2, simplify_merge_mask (nvm, mask1, 1));
Think the last two should sim
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 17/09/18 10:05, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Would be good to have self-tests for the new transforms.
> [...]
>> known_eq, since we require equality for correctness. Same for the
>> other tests.
>
> How about the attached? I've made the edits you requested and written
>
Ping.
On 20/09/18 16:26, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 17/09/18 10:05, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Would be good to have self-tests for the new transforms.
[...]
known_eq, since we require equality for correctness. Same for the
other tests.
How about the attached? I've made the edits you requested
On 17/09/18 10:05, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Would be good to have self-tests for the new transforms.
[...]
known_eq, since we require equality for correctness. Same for the
other tests.
How about the attached? I've made the edits you requested and written
some self-tests.
Doesn't simplif
writes:
> This patch was part of the original patch we acquired from Honza and Martin.
>
> It simplifies vector elements that are inactive, according to the mask.
>
> 2018-09-05 Jan Hubicka
> Martin Jambor
>
> * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_merge_mask): New function.
> (simp
This patch was part of the original patch we acquired from Honza and Martin.
It simplifies vector elements that are inactive, according to the mask.
2018-09-05 Jan Hubicka
Martin Jambor
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_merge_mask): New function.
(simplify_ternary_oper
13 matches
Mail list logo
