On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:02:36AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Thanks for the example. ROSBG, what a weird instruction.
And it's annoying too because it does the same as RISBG in some
cases and can confuse "combine" to take a different branch that
turns out to be a dead end.
> On Thu, Jan
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:02:36AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Dominik,
>
> Thanks for the example. ROSBG, what a weird instruction.
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/combine.c
> > +++ b/gcc/combine.c
> > @@ -11372,6 +11372,16 @@ change_zer
Hi Dominik,
Thanks for the example. ROSBG, what a weird instruction.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> --- a/gcc/combine.c
> +++ b/gcc/combine.c
> @@ -11372,6 +11372,16 @@ change_zero_ext_src (subrtx_ptr_iterator *piter)
>else if (GET_CODE (x) == ZERO_EXTEND
>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:02:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The attached patch deals with another type of zero_extend that is
> > not yet handled in change_zero_ext, i.e. (zero_extend
> > (pseudoreg)), without a "subreg" in
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The attached patch deals with another type of zero_extend that is
> not yet handled in change_zero_ext, i.e. (zero_extend
> (pseudoreg)), without a "subreg" in between. What do you think?
> (Mostly untested yet.)
My main question is:
