http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Dec 10 22:59:27 2013
New Revision: 205875
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205875&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58295
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_truncation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Dec 10 22:58:37 2013
New Revision: 205874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58295
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_truncation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN hook is add in r190846
> and x86 used it in r190847.
Sure, but you cannot use an x86 hook to reject something for non-x86 arches...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #12 from Kito Cheng ---
> The question sounds self-contradictory... Anyway, rather than inventing a
> new
> hook for each problem, let's try to formulate it in terms of existing hooks.
TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN hook is add in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So why don't reject it at
> TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN/ix86_legitimate_combined_insn
> instead of limit at combine phase if it's only benefit for x86 ?
The question sounds self-contradictory... Anywa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npickito at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't be allowed
> to penalize all the others. I think we should restrict the effect of
> r191928, in particu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Therefore, we can conclude that the original case tried by the combiner is
> the best way to merge/reduce the redundant zero extension insn.
Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #4 from Ling-hua Tseng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> So perhaps you should just look at combiner dump and see what insns it tried
> and failed to match and see if you couldn't add some of them into the
> affected ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
15 matches
Mail list logo
