Thanks Tamar,
as a note: I just pushed the changes that removes GCC's compile time
warnings (as in building these transformations will output less
warnings.) Fuzzying the code found no random programs out of 50,000 that
triggered errors with field reordering and dead field elimination (i.e.
-
Bear's iPhone
Hi,
There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like:
int foo (int n)
{
int t1 = 8 * n;
int t2 = 8 * (n - 1);
return t1 - t2;
}
It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B) * C",
and
be folded to constant "8". But thi
Snapshot gcc-8-20200820 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200820/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hi Erick,
Thanks for updating the branch! From some initial testing it seems to result in
some nice gains for mcf but also in lower peak memory usage and smaller
binaries even for benchmarks that don't show an improvement in runtime though I
haven't looked at these more closely yet.
I think y
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
> What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc")
> part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in
> all of the three substituted patterns, so I wondered why not just have
> (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in the original de
Pip Cet writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:52 AM Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> wrote:
>> > recognize such insns, but as it stands that define_insn would
>> > recognize the incorrect insn:
>> >
>> > [(set (reg:QI 0) (const_int 0))
>> > (clobber (scratch:CC))]
>>
>> get_cc_reg_clobber_rtx also looks
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:52 AM Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> > recognize such insns, but as it stands that define_insn would
> > recognize the incorrect insn:
> >
> > [(set (reg:QI 0) (const_int 0))
> > (clobber (scratch:CC))]
>
> get_cc_reg_clobber_rtx also looks at the insn itself (i.e. what
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:53 AM Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 20/08/2020 06:40, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj via Gcc wrote:
> > What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc")
> > part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in
> > all of the three substituted patterns, so I wond
Hello,
I am looking at the dump for the build_alias pass. I see a lot of
variables with the naming convention D.[0-9]* in the points-to sets
being printed.
When I compile with
-fdump-tree-all-all
I can see that the suffix D.[0-9]* is appended to some gimple variables.
I initially imagined
On 20/08/2020 06:40, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj via Gcc wrote:
What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc")
part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in
all of the three substituted patterns, so I wondered why not just have
(set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in the original d
11 matches
Mail list logo
