https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> It might also be useful if the range is [0,10] for x%5 to be simplified down
> to just "t = x-5; x>=5?t:x;"
(I assume you meant [0,9])
I agree, but the profitabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12)
> One last thing that would have been nice: in VRP, if the range of X is
> included in [10,14], X%5 can be simplified to X-10. But it is probably not
> worth the tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri May 15 17:34:15 2015
New Revision: 223221
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-15 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/64454
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Sat May 9 15:40:05 2015
New Revision: 222970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-09 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/64454
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
VRP could still do better:
typedef unsigned short T;
T f(T x, T y){
// Avoid narrowing in the front-end
int ix=x;
int iy=y;
T z=ix%iy;
int iz=z;
return z%iy;
}
ix and iy both have range [0, 65535]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Ah, this, I just didn't want to call fold_unary to create GC garbage when I
> can cheaply see that it is ok.
Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > The reason for tree_int_cst_sgn (vr->min) >= 0 was that I don't want to let
> > 0 through and for negative values, h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The reason for tree_int_cst_sgn (vr->min) >= 0 was that I don't want to let
> 0 through and for negative values, handling those would require computing
> absolute v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 12 20:44:32 2015
New Revision: 219491
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64454
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_div_or_mod_using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks, it looks good and it covers the most important case.
Not sure why you are testing "tree_int_cst_sgn (vr->min) >= 0" but it doesn't
hurt. Typo " or signed" -> " for signed" in the first comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Folding (x%y)
15 matches
Mail list logo
