On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > > > UNLT & ORDERED is always LT. When would it not be true?
> > >
> > > LT
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:59:49PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandi
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:35:24PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Actually, this doesn't work because *_operators want rtxes rather
> than codes. I can get around that by passing op0 and op1 for
> the existing rtxes. For the conversion at the end, I can do:
>
> machine_mode compared_mode =
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > > > UNLT & ORDERED is a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > > > UNLT & ORDERED is always LT. When would it not be tr
Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> I'd actually considered converting to signed and back instead of adding
>>> extra cases, but I thought that would be rejected as too inefficient.
>>> (That was a concern with my patch above.) It seemed like one of the selling
>>> points of doing it your way was that
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17:38AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > > UNLT & ORDERED is always LT. When would it not be true?
> >
> > LT traps on quiet NaNs for -ftrapping-math, UNLT and ORDER
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > UNLT & ORDERED is always LT. When would it not be true?
>
> LT traps on quiet NaNs for -ftrapping-math, UNLT and ORDERED don't.
No? -ftrapping-math makes nothing trap. The only thing it does is
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:42:46AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >> Before I resubmit, why is the simplify-rtx.c part all wrong?
>> >
>> > It was nice and simple, and it isn't anymore. 8 4 2 1 for the four of
>> > lt gt eq u
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:42:46AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> Before I resubmit, why is the simplify-rtx.c part all wrong?
> >
> > It was nice and simple, and it isn't anymore. 8 4 2 1 for the four of
> > lt gt eq un are hardly worth documenting or maki
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>> find_sets_in_insn has:
>>>
>>> /* Don't count call-insns, (set (reg 0) (call ...)), as a set.
>>> The hard function value register is used only once, to copy to
>>> someplace else, so it isn't worth cse'ing. */
>>>
Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> find_sets_in_insn has:
>>
>> /* Don't count call-insns, (set (reg 0) (call ...)), as a set.
>> The hard function value register is used only once, to copy to
>> someplace else, so it isn't worth cse'ing. */
>> else if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (x))
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:35:10PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > r278411 causes bootstrap to fail on at least all powerpc*. Also, I am
> > author of this simplify-rtx code, and I think what you did is all wrong.
> > Also, it should be two patches, t
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi,
>
> r278411 causes bootstrap to fail on at least all powerpc*. Also, I am
> author of this simplify-rtx code, and I think what you did is all wrong.
> Also, it should be two patches, the CSE part should be separate. (I can
> not tell if that is the part that regr
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:32:09PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > r278411 causes bootstrap to fail on at least all powerpc*. Also, I am
> > author of this simplify-rtx code, and I think what you did is all wrong.
> > Also, it should be two patches, the CSE part s
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi,
>
> r278411 causes bootstrap to fail on at least all powerpc*. Also, I am
> author of this simplify-rtx code, and I think what you did is all wrong.
> Also, it should be two patches, the CSE part should be separate. (I can
> not tell if that is the part that regr
16 matches
Mail list logo
