Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-05-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: > > > Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a > > separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would > > break, the folding of x * -1 ? > > 2013-04-05 Ma

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-26 Thread Marc Glisse
ping http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00336.html On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Marc Glisse
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would break, the folding of x * -1 ? 2013-04-05 Marc Glisse * tree.c (integer_all_onesp) : Test

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Richard Biener
Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:46:48PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> >BTW, the integer_all_onesp stuff is broken for this from what I can >> >see, for complex >> >numbers it returns true for -1 + 0i where all bytes aren't 0xff, so >we >> >need >> >to rule out COMPLEX_CSTs (or

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:46:48PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >BTW, the integer_all_onesp stuff is broken for this from what I can > >see, for complex > >numbers it returns true for -1 + 0i where all bytes aren't 0xff, so we > >need > >to rule out COMPLEX_CSTs (or do integer_all_onesp on each p

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Richard Biener
Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> Can you factor out a function that returns >> >> A proper qimode value if possible or null and >> >> Use it

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Marc Glisse
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: Can you factor out a function that returns A proper qimode value if possible or null and Use it in bo

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Can you factor out a function that returns > >> A proper qimode value if possible or null and > >> Use it in both places? > > > >Like th

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-05 Thread Richard Biener
Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> Can you factor out a function that returns >> A proper qimode value if possible or null and >> Use it in both places? > >Like this? You should be able to remove zero, minus one and constructor special casing

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Can you factor out a function that returns > A proper qimode value if possible or null and > Use it in both places? Like this? 2013-04-04 Jakub Jelinek * tree-loop-distribution.c (const_with_all_bytes_same): New functio

Re: [PATCH] Loop distribution improvements

2013-04-04 Thread Richard Biener
Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >As discussed on IRC, this patch allows as to recognize more patterns as >memset, see the testcase for what it can do. > >Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Can you factor out a function that returns A proper qimode value if possible