On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:50:38PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 4/7/20 4:58 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> I wonder if it would be helpful to have
> >>
> >> (uoverflow_plus x y carry)
> >> (soverflow_plus x y carry)
> >>
> >> etc.
> >
> > Those have three operands, which is nasty t
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:20 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> > On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> >>> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Richard Earnshaw
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:19:42PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The reason I'm not keen on using special modes for this case is that
>> they'd describe one way in which the result can be used rather than
>> describing what the instruction actually does. The inst
On 4/7/20 4:58 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be helpful to have
>>
>> (uoverflow_plus x y carry)
>> (soverflow_plus x y carry)
>>
>> etc.
>
> Those have three operands, which is nasty to express.
How so? It's a perfectly natural operation.
> On rs6000 we have the car
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 02:43:36PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 4/7/20 1:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:19:42PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> The reason I'm not keen on using special modes for this case is that
> >> they'd describe one way in which th
On 4/7/20 1:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:19:42PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The reason I'm not keen on using special modes for this case is that
>> they'd describe one way in which the result can be used rather than
>> describing what the instruction actuall
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:19:42PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> The reason I'm not keen on using special modes for this case is that
> they'd describe one way in which the result can be used rather than
> describing what the instruction actually does. The instruction really
> does set all fou
Hi!
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/04/2020 12:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> >> Yes. It surprised me, when doing the aarch32 version, just how often
> >> the mid-end parts of the compiler were able to reaso
On 4/7/20 9:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> It's not really reversibility that I'm after (at least not for its
> own sake).
>
> If we had a three-input compare_cc rtx_code that described a comparison
> involving a carry input, we'd certainly be using it here, because that's
> what the instructio
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 06/04/2020 12:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>>> On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
On 06/04/2020 12:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richa
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:20 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> > On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> >>> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> > On 02/04
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>>> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> This is at
On 03/04/2020 16:03, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
>
> In
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>>> On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-w
On 03/04/2020 13:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>> On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
>>>
>>> In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-with-carry
>>> patterns that also output fla
"Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
> On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
>>
>> In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-with-carry
>> patterns that also output flags with unspecs. As suggested by
>> Richard Sandifo
On 02/04/2020 19:53, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
>
> In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-with-carry
> patterns that also output flags with unspecs. As suggested by
> Richard Sandiford during review of v1. It does seem clean
On 4/2/20 11:53 AM, Richard Henderson via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
>
> In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-with-carry
> patterns that also output flags with unspecs. As suggested by
> Richard Sandiford during review of v1. It does seem cleane
This is attacking case 3 of PR 94174.
In v2, I unify the various subtract-with-borrow and add-with-carry
patterns that also output flags with unspecs. As suggested by
Richard Sandiford during review of v1. It does seem cleaner.
r~
Richard Henderson (11):
aarch64: Accept 0 as first argument
20 matches
Mail list logo
