"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note the REG_EQUAL note of insn 17. cse tries to replace reg:SI 138
> with a constant and because of insn 13, the note becomes (float:SF
> (const_int 0)) which in turn cse converts into
>
> REG_EQUAL (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0])
That
> Who is calling CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value?
plus_constant calls CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value.
simplify_binary_operation_1 calls plus_constant ( while trying to
simplify PLUS on (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0]) & (const_int
-2147483648 [0x8000]) ), which in turn calls CONST_DOUBL
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Who is calling CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value?
> plus_constant calls CONST_DOUBLE_LOW on this value.
>
> simplify_binary_operation_1 calls plus_constant ( while trying to
> simplify PLUS on (const_double:SF 0 [0x0] 0.0 [0x0.0p+0]) & (const_int
>
> How can we have a PLUS on a CONST_DOUBLE and a CONST_INT? That does
> not make sense, as there is no MODE argument that could make this work
> correctly. From your description, MODE must be some integer mode, in
> which case it is wrong to be using a CONST_DOUBLE in SFmode.
>
> (I don't know wh
> reg:SI 140 is known to have the constant value
> (const_int -2147483648 [0x8000]))
Wasnt clear maybe in my previous post. reg:SI 140 is known to have
this const_int value from a previous copy into it - here
(insn 19 17 20 2 /fc3/scratchpad/testcase-min.i:8 (set (reg:SI 140)
(const_in
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How can we have a PLUS on a CONST_DOUBLE and a CONST_INT? That does
> > not make sense, as there is no MODE argument that could make this work
> > correctly. From your description, MODE must be some integer mode, in
> > which case it is wrong t
> (reg:SF 139) can hold the value (const_double:SF 0) but (subreg:SI
> (reg:SF 139)) should be the value (const_int 0). Perhaps the problem
> is how we handle a REG_EQUAL note when the destination of the set is a
> SUBREG.
(subreg:SI (reg:SF 139), 0) shouldnt be able to hold the value
(float:SF (
On 02 August 2007 15:00, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> How can we have a PLUS on a CONST_DOUBLE and a CONST_INT? That does
>>> not make sense, as there is no MODE argument that could make this work
>>> correctly. From your description, MODE must
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (reg:SF 139) can hold the value (const_double:SF 0) but (subreg:SI
> > (reg:SF 139)) should be the value (const_int 0). Perhaps the problem
> > is how we handle a REG_EQUAL note when the destination of the set is a
> > SUBREG.
>
> (subreg:SI (r
Hi,
> Pranav, although there is indeed a bug in the mid-end here, from your point
> of view the simple and effective workaround should be to implement a movdi
> pattern (and movsf and movdf if you don't have them yet: it's an absolute
> requirement to implement movMM for any modes you expect you
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:49:32PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Yes, absolutely so, we already know that there are problems there. For
> references, see the threads "Deep CSE bug!"[*] and "Bogus REG_EQUIV note
> generation"[**] (subject line was wrong, should have been REG_EQUAL all along)
> fro
On 09 August 2007 13:25, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:49:32PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>> Yes, absolutely so, we already know that there are problems there. For
>> references, see the threads "Deep CSE bug!"[*] and "Bogus REG_EQUIV note
>> generation"[**] (sub
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:53:53PM +0530, Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
> " internal compiler error: RTL check: expected code 'const_double' and
> mode 'VOID', have code 'const_double' and mode 'SF' in plus_constant,
> at explow.c:103"
[snip]
> Regret the rather verbose post.
It is not verbose enou
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:32:02PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09 August 2007 13:25, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
> >All examples so far have had CONST_DOUBLE in the REG_EQUAL note.
>
> Yes, and? I don't see what you're getting at here.
Not necessarily a whole lot, but it's the o
On 17 August 2007 17:02, 'Rask Ingemann Lambertsen' wrote:
>
>What happened to the experiments you described at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg01178.html>? Emitting a no-op move
> of the (set (reg) (reg)) form won't work, but maybe something like
>
> (insn (use (reg) (expr_list:REG_E
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 06:02:06PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>What happened to the experiments you described at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg01178.html>? Emitting a no-op move
> of the (set (reg) (reg)) form won't work, but maybe something like
>
> (insn (use (reg) (expr
16 matches
Mail list logo
