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
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 regresses us, either).
Could you please re
17 matches
Mail list logo
