On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>
>>> Please do not drop A - B -> A + (-B) from fold-const as match.pd
>>> doesn't implement all of fold-const.c negate_expr_p support.
>
> Done.
>
>>> which is more expensive. This means
Hi,
Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>> Please do not drop A - B -> A + (-B) from fold-const as match.pd
>> doesn't implement all of fold-const.c negate_expr_p support.
Done.
>> which is more expensive. This means that we miss a
>> (bit_and (bit_not @0) INTEGER_CST@1)
Should we have thi
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> +/* Convert (A + A) * C -> A * 2 * C. */
>> +(simplify
>> + (mult:c (convert? (plus @0 @0)) (convert? @1))
>> + (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (@0), type))
>> + (convert (mult @0 (mult
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
+/* Convert (A + A) * C -> A * 2 * C. */
+(simplify
+ (mult:c (convert? (plus @0 @0)) (convert? @1))
+ (if (tree_nop_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (@0), type))
+ (convert (mult @0 (mult { build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (@1), 2); } @1)
+(simplify
+ (mult:c (
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the patch that moves some multiply optimizations
> from fold-const using simplify and match.
>
> Please review the patch and let me know if any modifications are required.
>
> Tested the patch on X86.
>
> O
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that moves some multiply optimizations
from fold-const using simplify and match.
Please review the patch and let me know if any modifications are required.
Tested the patch on X86.
Observing following failures:-
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/fold-plusmult.c scan-tree-dump-
