On 8/8/23 11:21, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 8/7/23 13:36, Jeff Law wrote:
This test is too aggressive. Constants have VOIDmode, so we need to
let the through this phase of conditional move support.
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the trunk.
Committed to the trunk,
As
On 8/8/23 11:21, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 8/7/23 13:36, Jeff Law wrote:
This test is too aggressive. Constants have VOIDmode, so we need to
let the through this phase of conditional move support.
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the trunk.
Committed to the trunk,
As
Hi Jeff,
On 8/7/23 13:36, Jeff Law wrote:
This test is too aggressive. Constants have VOIDmode, so we need to
let the through this phase of conditional move support.
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the trunk.
Committed to the trunk,
As discussed this morning, this triggers an
On 8/7/23 17:42, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 8/7/23 13:36, Jeff Law wrote:
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the trunk.
I'm curious, how do you know what's missing. Does ifc have some stats
like autovec which explicitly reports missed opportunities ?
Xiao's testcases :-)
I haven't
On 8/7/23 13:36, Jeff Law wrote:
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the trunk.
I'm curious, how do you know what's missing. Does ifc have some stats
like autovec which explicitly reports missed opportunities ?
-Vineet
7 14:34:40 2023 -0600
[committed][RISC-V]Don't reject constants in cmov condition
This test is too aggressive. Constants have VOIDmode, so we need to let the
through this phase of conditional move support.
Fixes several missed conditional moves with the
