On 01/13/2016 03:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson
wrote:
The info is in here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no longer
generate smulbb etc
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> The info is in here
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
>>> See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c whi
On 13/01/16 06:59, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
The info is in here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no longer
generate smulbb etc instructions, which are 16x16=32 expanding
mul
Hi all,
On 13/01/16 01:40, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Kugan
wrote:
Yes, making PROMOTE_MODE to work the same way as in
promote_function_mode in arm will fix this. Can you please point me to
the test cases that are regressing so that I can also start looking at them.
Th
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> The info is in here
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
> See the comments on gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123].c which no longer
> generate smulbb etc instructions, which are 16x16=32 expanding
> multiplies which are faster on some
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Kugan
wrote:
> Yes, making PROMOTE_MODE to work the same way as in
> promote_function_mode in arm will fix this. Can you please point me to
> the test cases that are regressing so that I can also start looking at them.
The info is in here
https://gcc.gnu.org/b
On 13/01/16 10:19, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22 PM, kugan
> wrote:
>> When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign
>> differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714.
>
>> This is similar to PR65932 where sign change in PROMOTE_MODE cause
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22 PM, kugan
wrote:
> When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign
> differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714.
> This is similar to PR65932 where sign change in PROMOTE_MODE causes problem
> for parameter. But need a different
On 12/01/16 12:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:04:22PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2016-01-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Fix promoted sign in SUBREG_PRMOTED
I'd like to just point at the ChangeLog typo - PRMOTED instead of PROMOTED.
Sin
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:04:22PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >2016-01-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> >
> >* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Fix promoted sign in SUBREG_PRMOTED
I'd like to just point at the ChangeLog typo - PRMOTED instead of PROMOTED.
Jakub
Hi Kugan,
On 12/01/16 06:22, kugan wrote:
When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign differently,
following is the cause for the problem in PR67714.
_8 = fn1D.5055 ();
f_13 = _8;
function returns -15 and in _8 it is sign extended. In the second statement, we say tha
When promote_function_mode and promote_ssa_mode changes the sign
differently, following is the cause for the problem in PR67714.
_8 = fn1D.5055 ();
f_13 = _8;
function returns -15 and in _8 it is sign extended. In the second
statement, we say that the value is SUBREG_PROMOTED and promote
12 matches
Mail list logo
