The doc at wide-int.h:136 needs work.The doc currently says that the
precision and length are always greater than 0. This is now not
correct. It also says that the bits above the precision are defined
to be the sign extension if the precision does not cover that block.
I do not know
Then with a fixed comment, this patch is fine.
kenny
On 05/03/2014 02:59 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
The doc at wide-int.h:136 needs work.The doc currently says that the
precision and length are always greater than 0. This is now not
correct. It also says
please hold off on committing patches for the next couple of hours as we
have a very large merge to do.
thanks.
kenny
here is a comparison. The two areas were built using configure with no
options at all on x86-64. The comparison is between revision 210112 and
210113.Tsan is very unhappy but everything else looks ok.I know
that this worked a couple of days before the merge. I know that there
was some
everyone who has a private port will hate you forever. note that i
have 2 of them.
On 05/08/2014 02:31 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Ramana Radhakrishnan
* wide-int.cc (UTItype): Define.
(UDWtype)
2014-05-09 Kenneth Zadeck
PR middle-end/6
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Changed width of mask.
committed as revision 210274.
kenny
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c (revision 210253)
+++ gcc/fold
several test cases started failing as a result of making the size of the
wide-int buffer smaller.
this patch fixes them. This failure was unrelated to the wide-int
buffer size directly, but a hard constant in the truck code was replaced
by MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT when it should have been repl
On 04/22/2014 04:02 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Looks like a few uses of the old idiom:
BITS_PER_UNIT == 8 ? 3 : exact_log2 (BITS_PER_UNIT)
I do not think that these crept in as much as they were never squished out.
have crept in. This patch replaces them with LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT.
Test
On 04/23/2014 05:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00769.html
Any ideas? I recall chatter on IRC that we want to mer
On 04/23/2014 10:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 04/23/2014 05:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
Ping.
http
This is fine with me.
kenny
On 04/24/2014 10:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
For signed min / -1 we set the overflow flag (good) but also returned a
quotient of 0. It should be 0x80...0 instead. Since that's also the
value of the original dividend, we can just copy the representation over.
T
This patch started out to be a purely mechanical change to the switch
statements so that the ones that are used to take apart constants can be
logically grouped.This is important for the next patch that I will
submit this week that frees the rtl level from only being able to
represent large
I of course meant the machine "independent" not "dependent"
On 08/20/2012 09:50 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This patch started out to be a purely mechanical change to the switch
statements so that the ones that are used to take apart constants can
be logically grouped.T
Now that I have had a chance to talk to Richard, I have now done
everything that he requested in his email.
Here is the new patch and changelog. Everything was tested on x86-64.
2012-08-21 Kenneth Zadeck
* alias.c (rtx_equal_for_memref_p): Convert constant cases.
* combine.c
it would have been tough without the second snippit
On 08/21/2012 01:02 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
switch (code)
{
-case CONST_INT:
-case CONST_DOUBLE:
-case CONST_FIXED:
+CASE_CONST_UNIQUE:
case SYMBOL_REF:
case CONST:
cas
make more sense to have the
rtxs be consistent rather than rtx/mode consistent.
kenny
On 08/21/2012 12:56 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I plan to commit this in a few days unless someone has some comments.
This is a mostly trivial patch and the changes from that are
All changes made as Richard requested.
Retested on x86-64.
committed as revision 190627
2012-08-23 Kenneth Zadeck
* alias.c (rtx_equal_for_memref_p): Convert constant cases.
* combine.c (find_single_use_1, mark_used_regs_combine): Convert
to CASE_CONST_ANY.
* cse.c
Tom,
I have a problem with the approach that you have taken here. I believe
that this could be a very useful addition to gcc so I am in general very
supportive, but i think you are missing an important case.
My problem is that it the pass does not actually look at the target and
make any d
,
I see I replied to your original message that had the wrong CC, I'm now CC-ing
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.
Thanks,
- Tom
On 12/07/12 11:05, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 12/07/12 03:39, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Tom,
I have a problem with the approach that you have taken here. I believe
that this cou
wrote:
On 12/07/12 14:04, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
this unless everything is in the same bb.
the whole point of having a separate pass for doing extension
elimination is that it needs to be done over the entire function.
There is a
the pass does not handle induction variables, i.e. variables that feed
into themselves.
kenny
On 07/13/2012 03:53 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 12/07/12 14:04, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
this unless everything is in the same bb.
the
on the x86-64.
2012-07-29 Kenneth Zadeck
* cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_locations): Encapsulate test for
CONST_DOUBLE in macro.
* combine.c (try_combine, gen_lowpart_for_combine): Ditto.
* cprop.c (implicit_set_cond_p): Ditto.
* cselib.c (rtx_equal_for_cselib_1): Ditto
sorry, will fix all of this. thanks.
On 07/29/2012 12:33 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
Given that Richard Sandiford advised on all of the non trivial changes,
I am going to check this patch in in the next few days unless i hear
some comments otherwise.
TBH I'd
I will add the comment. However, my hope is that will be short lived
knowledge, but i am a couple of patches away from that.
kenny
On 07/29/2012 05:31 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
* rtl.h (CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P
bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64.
committed as revision 190105
2012-08-02 Kenneth Zadeck
* cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_locations): Encapsulate test for
CONST_DOUBLE in macro.
* combine.c (try_combine, gen_lowpart_for_combine): Ditto.
* cprop.c (implicit_set_cond_p
this looks ok to me, but I am going to defer this to richard for final
acceptance. his contribution to this pass was his deep knowledge of
rtl so that we could get the scanning correct and this is clearly in
that domain. He may have some trick that does not throw all of the
baby out with th
trapped on x86-64.
2012-05-31 Kenneth Zadeck
* expmed.c (expand_mult, choose_multiplier): Change "2 *
HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT" to "HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT".
* expr.c (convert_modes): Likewise.
* explow.c (plus_constant): Likewise.
* fixed-value.c (fi
committed as revision 188139
2012-06-2 Kenneth Zadeck
* expmed.c (expand_mult, choose_multiplier): Change "2 *
HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT" to "HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT".
* expr.c (convert_modes): Likewise.
* explow.c (plus_constant): Likewise.
* fixed-valu
ti mode shifts on an llp64 platform.
bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64.
committed as revision 188359.
Kenny
2012-06-09 Kenneth Zadeck
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_const_binary_operation): Fixed shift
count trucation.
Index: gcc/simplify-rtx.c
this looks right to me. ok for commit.
On 08/26/2011 09:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
As described here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-08/msg00294.html
df is currently failing to create REG_DEAD notes for the last use
of a multi-reg hard register. This appears to be a typo:
df_set_
debugging the new
logic.
Both of these preprocessor symbols are documented at the top of the pass.
I have tested this on an x86_64 with both the force lowering on and off
and neither cause any regressions as well as extensive testing on my port.
Ok to commit?
Kenny
2012-03-29 Kenneth Zadeck
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for zero
+ extension and the shifts. This can be useful when po
On 03/30/2012 10:39 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
splitting wide moves, zero extensions, an
"r" (_a3) : "memory"); _a1;
});
if (__builtin_expect (((unsigned int) (_sys_result)>= 0xf001u), 0))
{ (__libc_errno = ((-(_sys_result;
_sys_result = (unsigned int) -1; }
(int) _sys_result; })
: __write (f->_fileno, data, to_do));
if
New version of the patch, with all of Richard Sandiford's comments
applied and retested.
Ok for commit?
Kenny
2012-03-31 Kenneth Zadeck
* toplev.c (backend_init_target): Call initializer for lower-subreg
pass.
* lower-subreg.c (target_info): New static var.
(compute_move
Richard,
thanks, for doing the changes.In particular, i did not really
understand how the target stuff was supposed to work.
I have one issue with the changes that you made.
I had actually decided that the speed/size decision was not relevant to
this patch.The problem is that since t
i would like to see more testing on other platforms. this is a large
patch. but otherwise it looks ok.
On 07/27/2011 08:26 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Hello list,
attached is a fairly intrusive patch that replaces many bitmaps in DF
with HARD_REG_SETs. Tested on i386 - no regressions (bes
were these tested on any platform aside from x86?
On 07/29/2011 01:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/29/2011 07:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
2011-07-29 Dimitrios Apostolou
Paolo Bonzini
(df_def_record_1): Assert a parallel must contain an
EXPR_LIST at
this
i really think that patches of this magnitude having to with the rtl
level should be tested on more than one platform.
kenny
On 07/29/2011 01:39 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Completely forgot it: Tested on i386, no regressions.
Dimitrios
you are the best
kenny
On 07/29/2011 05:48 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
i really think that patches of this magnitude having to with the rtl level
should be tested on more than one
so how much time does this save?
I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
be that important in real code.
it seems like the 5000 store test would in general provide a better
safety valve.
Kenny
On 03/15/2011 07:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On the attached t
, 2011 at 09:46:20AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/16/2011 12:12 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
so how much time does this save?
I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
be that important in real code.
it seems like the 5000 store test would in general provide a bett
I believe that this is not the right way to go.
if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live
for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask for
crossjumping you should give them crossjumping and not some crippled
version of it.
kenny
On 03/18/201
I could be happy with both patches.
On 03/18/2011 12:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I believe that this is not the right way to go.
if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for
the duration of the pass just as
i see your point.I had forgotten that crossjumping is not really a
pass, it is more of an infectious agent.
On 03/18/2011 01:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I believe that
On 03/19/2011 05:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
for correctness.
Note that df_get_bb_dirty is defaulting to "return false", not
"abort".
On 03/19/2011 08:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:08:48AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
On 03/19/2011 05:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
for
On 03/19/2011 09:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:48:55AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
i think that there are two separate questions here:
1) should your original patch go in as you did it, or should it go
in with the last "return false" be an ab
yes
On 03/20/2011 08:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:42:26AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
i think that this is the right way to go.my view is not just
what the code currently does, but also from the perspective of the
way i want this to work as the back ends evolve
we hit this limit trying to write the explicit semantics for a
vec_interleave_evenv32qi.
;;(define_insn "vec_interleave_evenv32qi"
;; [(set (match_operand:V32QI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
;;(vec_select:V32QI
;; (vec_concat:V64QI
;;(match_operand:V32QI 1 "register_operand" "0")
301 - 350 of 350 matches
Mail list logo
