https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Coming back to this.
WRT extension elimination. I've been pondering if we want a late pass to do a
bit of this that can't be handled by REE.
So let's take the case of a Zbs instruction operating on a va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #10 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Waterman from comment #9)
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM palmer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
> wrote:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Waterman ---
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM palmer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
>
> palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM palmer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
>
> palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Raphael and I are poking at this a bit. I can't convince myself that it's
actually safe to use GPR for the bit manipulation patterns.
For rv64 I'm pretty sure the b* instructions are operating on 64bit qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-11
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng ---
bset generated after change X to GPR for most zbs pattern:
```
foo:
bseta1,x0,a1
andna0,a0,a1
sext.w a0,a0
ret
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng ---
> It uses X iterator here instead of GPR, hmmm ...
I think that because we have w-variant before, so use X rather than GPR here,
but apparently we should revise this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(define_insn "*bset"
[(set (match_operand:X 0 "register_operand" "=r")
(ior:X (ashift:X (const_int 1)
(match_operand:QI 2 "register_operand" "r"))
(match_ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
One issue is RV32i_zbb produces:
(insn 8 4 9 2 (set (reg:SI 78)
(ashift:SI (const_int 1 [0x1])
(subreg:QI (reg/v:SI 76 [ rs2 ]) 0))) "t6.c":3:20 323 {*bsetsi_1}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Interesting rv32i_zbb produces:
foo:
bclra0,a0,a1
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
13 matches
Mail list logo