On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:07:22PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, James Greenhalgh
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05:26PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> Currently for the following
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05:26PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Currently for the following function:
>>> int f(int a, int b)
>>> {
>>> return a + (b <<7);
>>> }
>>
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05:26PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently for the following function:
>> int f(int a, int b)
>> {
>> return a + (b <<7);
>> }
>>
>> GCC produces:
>> add w0, w0, w1, lsl 7
>> But for ThunderX
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05:26PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently for the following function:
> int f(int a, int b)
> {
> return a + (b <<7);
> }
>
> GCC produces:
> add w0, w0, w1, lsl 7
> But for ThunderX 1, it is better if the instruction was split allowing
> better sched
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently for the following function:
> int f(int a, int b)
> {
> return a + (b <<7);
> }
>
> GCC produces:
> add w0, w0, w1, lsl 7
> But for ThunderX 1, it is better if the instruction was split allowing
> better scheduling to
