Jeff Law writes:
>> +&& ! unsignedp
> Don't you need to check that the conversion is actually a sign
> extension. Oh, you're relying on the signedness of ops->type. That
> should be sufficient.
Exactly.
>> +if (GET_MODE_SIZE (rmode) < GET_MODE_SIZE (mode)
>> +
On 08/18/2015 06:54 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Changes are:
1. s/shfit/shift/
2. Re-write the comment.
more explanations on the left shift across word size boundary
scenario, explan gcc's current expand steps and what this
optimization can improve.
3. Match the code to the
Jiong Wang writes:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
>> On 08/14/2015 11:40 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>* Figuring out whether the shift source is coming from sign extension
>>> by checking SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT instead of deducing from tree range
>>> info. I fell checking the gimple statement is m
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/14/2015 11:40 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>>* Figuring out whether the shift source is coming from sign extension
>> by checking SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT instead of deducing from tree range
>> info. I fell checking the gimple statement is more reliable and
>> str
On 08/14/2015 11:40 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
* Figuring out whether the shift source is coming from sign extension
by checking SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT instead of deducing from tree range
info. I fell checking the gimple statement is more reliable and
straigtforward.
I suspect it'll also
Jeff Law writes:
> On 04/29/2015 03:36 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>
>>> On 04/27/2015 02:21 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
Jeff,
Sorry, I can't understand the meaning of "overlap between t_low and
low",
assume "right" in "right value" means the oppo
On 04/29/2015 03:36 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 04/27/2015 02:21 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Jeff,
Sorry, I can't understand the meaning of "overlap between t_low and low",
assume "right" in "right value" means the opposite of "left" not
"correct".
So what you mean
Jeff Law writes:
> On 04/27/2015 02:21 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>>Sorry, I can't understand the meaning of "overlap between t_low and low",
>>assume "right" in "right value" means the opposite of "left" not
>>"correct".
>>
>>So what you mean is t_low and low share the s
On 04/27/2015 02:21 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Funny, I find myself wanting this transformation in both places :-)
Expansion time so that we generate efficient code from the start and
combine to catch those cases which are too complex to see at expansion,
but due to other optimizations become visible
Jeff Law writes:
> On 04/16/2015 05:04 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> This is a rework of
>>
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01998.html
>>
>> After second thinking, I feel it's better to fix this in earlier stage
>> during RTL expand which is more generic, and we also avoid makin
On 04/16/2015 05:04 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
This is a rework of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01998.html
After second thinking, I feel it's better to fix this in earlier stage
during RTL expand which is more generic, and we also avoid making the
already complex combine pass co
This is a rework of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01998.html
After second thinking, I feel it's better to fix this in earlier stage
during RTL expand which is more generic, and we also avoid making the
already complex combine pass complexer.
Currently gcc expand wide mode left
12 matches
Mail list logo
