[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

2015-05-26 Thread vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

2015-05-26 Thread vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 --- Comment #9 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vekumar Date: Tue May 26 15:32:02 2015 New Revision: 223703 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223703&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-26 Venkataramanan Kumar PR target/66049

[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

2015-05-19 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vekumar from comment #7) > > I am going to first send out patch for adding new shift based patterns. > Then separate patch test and remove mul patterns. Ok, please send out the p

[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

2015-05-18 Thread vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 --- Comment #7 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3) > Venkat, are you planning to submit this patch to gcc-patches? > Also, does this mean we can remove the patterns that do arith+shift using > MULT rtxes? (li

[Bug target/66049] [6 regression] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

2015-05-15 Thread vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 --- Comment #6 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5) > (In reply to vekumar from comment #4) > > (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3) > > > Venkat, are you planning to submit this patch to gcc-pat