On 7/10/2022 9:43 PM, liuhongt via Gcc-patches wrote:
The patch only handles load/store(including ctor/permutation, except
gather/scatter) for complex type, other operations don't needs to be
handled since they will be lowered by pass cplxlower.(MASK_LOAD is not
supported for complex type, so
The patch only handles load/store(including ctor/permutation, except
gather/scatter) for complex type, other operations don't needs to be
handled since they will be lowered by pass cplxlower.(MASK_LOAD is not
supported for complex type, so no need to handle either).
Instead of support vector(2)
on 2022/6/15 14:20, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Honza,
>
> Thanks for the comments! Some replies are inlined below.
>
> on 2022/6/14 19:37, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Function optimize_function_for_size_p returns OPTIMIZE_SIZE_NO
>>> if func->decl is not null but no cgraph node is available
on 2022/7/8 19:37, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 6/6/22 08:20, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> |Hi, PR105459 exposes one issue in inline_call handling that when it decides
>> to copy FP flags from callee to caller and rebuild the optimization node for
>> caller fndecl, it's possible that the target option node
On 10/07/2022 21:44, Jeff Law wrote:
This may all argue that these warnings don't belong in -Wall, which is
obviously a distinct, but vitally important discussion. I've always
believed that we can make an educated guess about whether or not to
include any given warning in -Wall, but we have
Hi, Segher
On 8/7/2022 上午 1:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/rlwimi-2.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/rlwimi-2.c
>> @@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
>> /* { dg-options "-O2" } */
>>
>> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {(?n)^\s+[a-z]} 14121 { target ilp32
And split it to GPR-version instruction after reload.
This will enable below optimization for 16/32/64-bit vector bit_op
- movd(%rdi), %xmm0
- movd(%rsi), %xmm1
- pand%xmm1, %xmm0
- movd%xmm0, (%rdi)
+ movl(%rsi), %eax
+ andl%eax,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 2:38 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> Hi HJ,
>
> I believe this should now be handled by the post-reload (CSE) pass.
> Consider the simple test case:
>
> __int128 a, b, c;
> void foo()
> {
> a = 0;
> b = 0;
> c = 0;
> }
>
> Without any STV, i.e. -O2 -msse4 -mno-stv, GCC
Hi HJ,
I believe this should now be handled by the post-reload (CSE) pass.
Consider the simple test case:
__int128 a, b, c;
void foo()
{
a = 0;
b = 0;
c = 0;
}
Without any STV, i.e. -O2 -msse4 -mno-stv, GCC get TI mode writes:
movq$0, a(%rip)
movq$0, a+8(%rip)
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 11:59 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/9/2022 2:52 PM, Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hello-
> >
> > PR97498 (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97498) is another PR
> > related to the fact that imprecise locations for _Pragma result in
> >
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 11:36 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> Hi Uros,
> Yes, I agree. I think it makes sense to have a single STV pass (after
> combine and before reload). Let's hear what HJ thinks, but I'm
> happy to investigate a follow-up patch that unifies the STV passes.
> But it'll be easier
Hi Uros,
Yes, I agree. I think it makes sense to have a single STV pass (after
combine and before reload). Let's hear what HJ thinks, but I'm
happy to investigate a follow-up patch that unifies the STV passes.
But it'll be easier to confirm there are no "code generation" changes
if those
This patch builds upon Richard Biener's suggestion of avoiding global
variables to track state/identify which passes have already been run.
In the early middle-end, the tree-ssa passes use the curr_properties
field in cfun to track this. This patch uses a new rtl_pass_progress
int field in crtl
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 2:17 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> This patch upgrades x86_64's scalar-to-vector (STV) pass to more
> aggressively transform 128-bit scalar TImode operations into vector
> V1TImode operations performed on SSE registers. TImode functionality
> already exists in STV, but only
On 7/9/2022 11:27 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 10/07/2022 08:59, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/9/2022 5:39 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
The size argument larger than size of SRC for strnlen and strndup is
problematic only if SRC is not NULL terminated, which invokes undefined
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka
> This is interesting idea. Basically we want to guess if inlining will
> make SRA and or strore->load propagation possible. I think the
> solution using INLINE_HINT may be bit too trigger happy, since it is very
> common that this happens and
Here is a first patch to complete __gnu_debug::basic_string Standard
conformity.
I prefer to submit this before checking for more missing stuff to check
that my proposal of having a testsuite_string.h header is ok.
I also noticed some problems with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC.
libstdc++:
Require effective target int128 for gcc.dg/pr106063.c.
Committed as obvious.
PR tree-optimization/106063
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/pr106063.c: Require effective target int128.
CC: Tamar Christina
Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr106063.c |
In discussions with Andrew we realized varying_p() was returning true
for a range of the entire domain with a non-empty nonzero mask. This
is confusing as varying_p() should only return true when absolutely no
information is available. A nonzero mask that has any cleared bits is
extra
19 matches
Mail list logo
