https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #1 from shihua at iscas dot ac.cn ---
This patch is
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=c23a9c87cc62bd177fd0d4db6ad34b34e1b9a31f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #3 from Vineet Gupta ---
Debugging of ctz3 case
The insns of interest are:
insn_cost 4 for 6: r74:SI=ctz(r73:DI#0)
REG_DEAD r73:DI
insn_cost 4 for 7: r72:DI=sign_extend(r74:SI)
REG_DEAD r74:SI
Before the commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Vineet, we've got some bits here you might want to play with. I'm about to
leave for the evening, but I'll put you in touch with Raphael tomorrow
afternoon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 54905
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54905&action=edit
proposed patch
This patch should fix this problem, by adding another pattern the machine
description to also rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Comment on attachment 54905
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54905
proposed patch
So that's a subset of what we've done. We initially thought that was going to
be enough to solve this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #7 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #5)
> Created attachment 54905 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> This patch should fix this problem, by adding another pattern the machine
> description to also recognize z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So coming back to this after a couple months, I'm confident the match.pd change
is unnecessary and in fact wrong. So we definitely want to set that aside.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> Comment on attachment 54905 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> So that's a subset of what we've done. We initially thought that was going
> to be enough to solve t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The sign_extend later gets turned into zero_extend. Presumably because we know
the value is never negative. That in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal as
it should be easily recognizable using any_exte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9000da00dd70988f30d43806bae33b22ee6b9904
commit r14-1006-g9000da00dd70988f30d43806bae33b22ee6b9904
Author: Raphael Moreira Zinsly
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
12 matches
Mail list logo