[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Jiu Fu Guo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #13 from Jiu Fu Guo --- Patches are committed for using "li/lis;rldicl/rldicr/rldic" to construct constants.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |il/gcc-patches/2020-October |il/gcc-patches/2023-July/62 |/555760.html|3519.html Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 --- Comment #12 from Jiu Fu Guo --- Thanks a lot for asking! The patch which handles this is submitted at: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/623519.html I would ping this patch again. If ok, I will commit to trunk. (And the series patches could be committed for "li/lis; rldicl/rldicr/rldic" https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/621000.html)
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11 from Sam James --- (In reply to Jens Seifert from comment #10) > Looks like no patch in the area got delivered. I did a small test for > Peter's was at https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/838b2e97-dfa9-3ca0-c3c6-1767d60dd...@linux.ibm.com/, Alan's may be https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553927.html.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
--- Comment #10 from Jens Seifert ---
Looks like no patch in the area got delivered. I did a small test for
unsigned long long c()
{
return 0xULL;
}
gcc 13.2.0:
li 3,0
ori 3,3,0x
sldi 3,3,32
expected:
li 3, -1
rldic 3, 3, 32, 16
All consecutive ones can be created with li + rldic.
The rotate eliminates the bits on the right and the clear the bits on the left
as described below:
li t,-1
rldic d,T,MB,63-ME
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org, ||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner --- Jeff, none of your constant generation patches covers this, correct? If not, maybe given your recent work on improving the code gen for contents, maybe you could pick up the patch and shepherd it to approval? I would like to see this work finally committed.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Alan Modra --- Nothing happened. The patch wasn't reviewed. I didn't ping the patch. I'm not working on gcc any more, so should remove myself as assignee for this bug.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 --- Comment #7 from Jens Seifert --- What happened ? Still waiting for improvement.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |il/gcc-patches/2020-Septemb |il/gcc-patches/2020-October |er/553661.html |/555760.html --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- No, the patch hasn't yet been reviewed.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- Alan, didn't one of your recent patches fix this particular bug? So can we mark this as fixed?
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|bergner at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3) > I submitted a patch that implements this idea. Actually, Alan is taking this over, so reassigning to him.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma ||il/gcc-patches/2020-Septemb ||er/553661.html Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > When you want the bits from bit MB to ME (inclusive) set, you can just do > > li t,-1 > rldic d,T,MB,63-ME > > (bit # 0 is the high bit; can also do wrap-around masks this way). I submitted a patch that implements this idea.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- When you want the bits from bit MB to ME (inclusive) set, you can just do li t,-1 rldic d,T,MB,63-ME (bit # 0 is the high bit; can also do wrap-around masks this way). Confirmed.
[Bug target/93176] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant consecutive ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2020-01-21 CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- @Segher: Can you please take a look?
