noticed the following:
double f(double x){ return -2*x; }
double g(double x){ return 2*-x; }
generates mulsd for f and xorpd+addsd for g, I should probably file a PR
about that, the running time may be similar but it is better to
canonicalize.
2013-06-14 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
best way
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors.
It seemed convenient
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants?
Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-(
Do we want A+~A - -1-i for integer complex types? Is using BIT_NOT_EXPR
on them even legal
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Essentially never. I tried with the fold_stmt version of the patch, and
libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/concept-inst.cc is the only file where it triggers.
Note that the case:
b=*a
*a=b
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants?
Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-(
And complex is even more of a pain than vector to handle.
Testing for CONSTANT_CLASS_P seems sufficient here. Some transformations also
wrote:
A followup to previous patch is more general pass that changes leading
spaces to tabs followed by at most 8 spaces.
s/at most/less than/
--
Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/12/13 14:17, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants?
Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-(
And complex is even more of a pain than vector to handle
= fold_build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, t, tt, void_zero_node);
+
+ return t;
+}
--
Marc Glisse
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
best way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR tree
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors.
It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't
match the semantics of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P), but I didn't want to name
Hello,
when porting __builtin_shuffle from C to C++, I ignored all the C++
specificities and added some extra bugs. This should improve things a bit.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR c++/57509
gcc/c-family/
* c
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the best
way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR tree-optimization/57361
gcc/
* tree-ssa-dse.c (dse_possible_dead_store_p
Hello,
this patch documents that __builtin_isinf_sign returns +-1 for +-Inf. This
builtin was created so it could be used by a libc that has a stronger
guarantee than the standard, and for glibc that means returning +-1, which
is what the code already does.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse marc.gli
Hello,
this patch removes 2 builtins that are undocumented, unused, and have
confusing semantics. Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR target/57224
* config/i386/i386.c (enum ix86_builtins, bdesc_args): Remove
(cop1) != INTEGER_CST
+ || integer_zerop (cop1)
+ || integer_minus_onep (cop1)))
+ doing_div_or_mod = true;
Aren't you already doing this test in ubsan_instrument_division?
--
Marc Glisse
.)
--
Marc Glisse
on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-27 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR tree-optimization/57371
gcc/
* fold-const.c (fold_comparison): Fold comparison of a FLOAT_EXPR
with 0.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr57371-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/pr57371-2.c: Likewise
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this is a simple patch to reduce a bit the noise in PR57324 (undefined
behavior flagged by clang). I only handled some of the most obvious ones.
Passes bootstrap
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:15:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this is a simple patch to reduce a bit the noise in PR57324 (undefined
behavior flagged by clang). I only
Hello,
this is a simple patch to reduce a bit the noise in PR57324 (undefined
behavior flagged by clang). I only handled some of the most obvious ones.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-24 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR other/57324
* expmed.c
Hello,
this patch passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. As explained in
the PR, it seems that the check for alignment is in the wrong direction
(tree-nrv.c and ada have the reverse one).
2013-05-18 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR c++/57175
gcc/cp/
* typeck.c
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
From: Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:47:23 +0200
Here is what I tested during the night, I'll just rename the function.
I took the chance to remove an unnecessary alternative in TRUTH_XOR_EXPR.
Passes bootstrap
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:54:14PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/17 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr:
Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
get xpass on some
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:23:08PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
2013-05-17 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR regression/57313
* gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to work (x86).
I'd say it should be PR testsuite/57313
the rest later.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-16 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR middle-end/57286
gcc/
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc) VEC_COND_EXPR: Disable some
transformations to avoid an infinite loop.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg
On Thu, 16 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
we can get into a cycle where:
(x0)|1 becomes (x0)?-1:1
and
(y?-1:1) becomes y|1
Contrary to what I posted in the PR, I am disabling the second
transformation here
on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-16 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/cp/
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Use cp_build_binary_op
instead of directly calling fold_build2.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/ext/vector22.C: Uncomment working test.
--
Marc GlisseIndex: cp/call.c
the change to x86intrin.h instead
of making it inside each *mmintrin.h header. The code would be the same
size, it would let us include smmintrin.h directly if we wanted to, and
x86intrin.h would also automatically work.
--
Marc Glisse
bootstrap on
m68k.
2013-05-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR bootstrap/57266
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) shift: Use an unsigned
variable for the shift amount. Check that we shift by non-negative
amounts.
--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/fold-const.c
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
in an earlier patch I apparently introduced a platform dependent signed /
unsigned comparison, so here is a fix. I am taking the chance to fix the
host_integerp second
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
wrote:
@@ -8274,28 +8269,34 @@ fold_unary_loc (location_t loc
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Second try.
I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
started by the easy part, and never did the rest).
Adapting invert_truthvalue_loc
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:04:52PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
this patch passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. When
moving uniform_vector_p, I only added the gcc_assert. Note that the
fold_binary patch helps for constant vectors
done by the vector lowering pass, but that's too late in my opinion.
2013-05-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* tree-vect-generic.c (uniform_vector_p): Move ...
* tree.c (uniform_vector_p): ... here.
* tree.h (uniform_vector_p): Declare it.
* fold
of the front-end (affects warnings) and
folding. I hesitated between removing this cast and enhancing
fold_convert, and chose the one that removes code. As a side benefit, I
got an XPASS :-)
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-11 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the existing
optimizations. Note that I made fold_truth_not_expr safe for use with vector
BIT_NOT_EXPR
)) OP ((T) (Z CNT2))
to:
(T) Z r CNT1
and if by chance Z was (T2) X, the 2 casts would collapse in the next
round. That might be a bit more generic (probably not very noticable), and
the pattern a bit shorter.
--
Marc Glisse
Hello,
here are a few more changes to fold-const.c so vectors can use the
existing optimizations. Note that I made fold_truth_not_expr safe for use
with vector BIT_NOT_EXPR.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-09 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* fold
} for instance, but I didn't add that.
2013-05-07 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* convert.c (convert_to_integer): Replace integer_all_onesp with
integer_minus_onep.
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_lt,
number_of_iterations_exit): Likewise
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Can you followup with a patch to do
s/integer_all_onesp/integer_minus_onep/ where it makes sense?
This passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I kept all_ones for
bitmask type of operations (BIT_*_EXPR
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Can you followup with a patch to do
s/integer_all_onesp/integer_minus_onep/ where it makes sense?
This passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I kept all_ones
for complex and vector
seems questionable: I think that it is the same as for the inner type,
which is already hashed. I didn't change that in the patch.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-07 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* stor-layout.c (element_precision
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
* fold-const.c (operand_equal_p): Use element_precision.
(fold_binary_loc): Handle vector types.
Note that this causes a regression in some cases: it now recognizes
LROTATE_EXPR for vectors, but then on x86_64 it isn't a supported vector
convert, I can put it
before if you prefer.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
(I believe it should also be backported to 4.8)
2013-05-06 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/cp/
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Call save_expr before
build_vector_from_val.
gcc/testsuite
arguing against this patch)
--
Marc Glisse
ping http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00336.html
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a
separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where
?) and to avoid ICEing on __m128i
f(__m128d a,__m128d b){return abba;} as we currently do in
warn_logical_operator.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this adds support for vector !, and ||. In the long run, I think it would
be good to be able to use TRUTH_*_EXPR with vectors
The logb functions
— logb(±0) returns −∞ and raises the ‘‘divide-by-zero’’ floating-point
exception.
— logb(±∞) returns ∞.
--
Marc Glisse
++: error: zz.cc: No such file or directory
g++: fatal error: no input files
(not that it needs them, it is short enough)
--
Marc Glisse
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 09:13:17PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
The comments on PREC in the rshift function really confused me.
Yeah, me too. But if count == prec, the code always:
/* Zero / sign extend all bits that are beyond the precision
-scalar-2.c testcase that goes with it) should probably be
backported to 4.8.
The code we generate for these examples is not very good, but that's a
different issue.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-04-12 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/cp/
* typeck.c
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this adds support for vector !, and ||. In the long run, I think it would
be good to be able to use TRUTH_*_EXPR with vectors, but that's probably a
lot of work
on x86_64-linux-gnu
2013-04-11 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* fold-const.c (const_binop): Handle vector shifts by a scalar.
(fold_binary_loc): Call const_binop also for mixed vector-scalar
operations.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/fold-cstvecshift.c: New testcase
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:24:02PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
here is a patch to handle constant folding of mixed vector-integer
operations. I could have shared the loop with the vector-vector
case, but that would have meant re-testing if arg2
;
+ check_vect ();
+ for (i = 0; i 15; ++i)
+a[i] = (i * 2) % 15;
+ for (i = 0; i 15; ++i)
+if (a[i] != (i * 2) % 15)
+ abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump vect } } */
Jakub
--
Marc Glisse
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
extern __inline __m128i __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__,
__artificial__))
_mm_slli_epi16 (__m128i __A, int __B
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:08:38AM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
The *intrin.h files already use __extension__ to create vectors, like:
return __extension__ (__m128d){ __F, 0.0 };
but even when I remove it it does not warn with -std=c89 -pedantic.
Even
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
I seem to remember discussion in the PR(s) that the intrinsics should
(and do for other compilers) expand to the desired instructions even when
the corresponding instruction set is disabled.
emmintrin.h starts
). However, your transformation turns it into undefined
behavior: an addition that overflows in a type with
TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED.
--
Marc Glisse
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
extern __inline __m128i __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__,
__artificial__))
_mm_slli_epi16 (__m128i __A, int __B)
{
- return (__m128i)__builtin_ia32_psllwi128 ((__v8hi)__A, __B);
+ return (__m128i) ((__v8hi)__A __B);
}
Actually, I
.
* For integer operations like _mm_add_epi16 I should probably use the
unsigned typedefs to make it clear overflow is well defined? (the patch
still has the signed version)
* Any better name than __v4su for the unsigned version of __v4si?
* Other comments?
2013-04-07 Marc Glisse marc.gli
By the way, the comment in emmintrin.h in front of _mm_sqrt_sd seems
wrong:
/* Return pair {sqrt (A[0), B[1]}. */
It should be instead:
/* Return pair {sqrt (B[0]), A[1]}. */
If you agree I'll fix that independently.
--
Marc Glisse
where it
would break, the folding of x * -1 ?
--
Marc Glisse
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a
separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would
break, the folding of x * -1 ?
2013-04-05 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* tree.c
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
I am not 100% convinced that it is always better to fold to a MEM_REF, but
that's what the PR asks for.
bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-04-03 Marc Glisse
for ADDR_EXPR: is_gimple_address (t)
unexpected expression 'v' of kind mem_ref in cxx_eval_constant_expression
The first one in particular affects almost all vector tests, so it might
hide other issues.
--
Marc Glisse
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
+ if ((handled_component_p (arg0) || TREE_CODE (arg0) == MEM_REF)
This check means the optimization is not performed
Hello,
I am not 100% convinced that it is always better to fold to a MEM_REF, but
that's what the PR asks for.
bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-04-03 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR middle-end/52436
gcc/
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc) BIT_FIELD_REF
.
Thanks, I should have checked the other uses indeed... I got confused
because at tree level, operand_equal_p implies that there are no side
effects.
--
Marc Glisse
), that the canonicalization
would make more noticable (and thus easier to fix).
--
Marc Glisse
we update the prerequisites documentation to say that if
Systemtap is installed it needs to be at least version X?
I thought you were going to suggest enhancing the configure test so it
fails on old systemtap (detects it as absent).
--
Marc Glisse
, shouldn't this be:
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT mask = ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 2 (n_elts - 1)) - 1;
so it doesn't cause undefined behavior for V64QI?
--
Marc Glisse
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
* tree-flow-inline.h (get_addr_base_and_unit_offset_1): Handle
BIT_FIELD_REF.
I wrote a safer version of this for PR52436:
case BIT_FIELD_REF:
- return NULL_TREE;
+ {
+ HOST_WIDE_INT this_off
throughout the
compiler? I didn't check if the cxx-conversion branch already does it.
--
Marc Glisse
better to add it at the same time.
bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-03-31 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR tree-optimization/56790
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc) VEC_COND_EXPR: Add constant folding.
testsuite/
* g++.dg/ext/pr56790-1.C: New testcase
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this adds constant folding of VEC_COND_EXPR at the tree level by forwarding
to the VEC_PERM_EXPR code (a merge is a special case of a permutation). The
CONSTRUCTOR case
versions), I am
just as happy with that.
By the way, even if we don't take the canonicalization (just ignore the
line comparing GET_CODEs), do we still want the refactoring that this
patch brings, or is the current interface better?
--
Marc Glisse
(op0, op1), but I am still doing it as it seems safe.
Uros, are you ok with the testsuite part?
2013-03-30 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1) VEC_SELECT:
Handle VEC_MERGE.
(simplify_ternary_operation) VEC_MERGE: Use
(the base object is not computed for
SLP) but shouldn't hurt.
The current patch is attached (passed bootstrap+testsuite a week ago).
Are there some parts of this that could go in?
2013-03-30 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_store): Accept
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/19/2013 08:47 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
(define_insn_and_split avx_castmodeavxsizesuffix_castmode
[(set (match_operand:AVX256MODE2P 0 nonimmediate_operand =x,m)
- (unspec:AVX256MODE2P
- [(match_operand:ssehalfvecmode 1
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:00 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Do you at least agree that vector-vector subregs make sense, or is that part
wrong as well?
You mean a V4SImode subreg of a V8SImode register, not just same-size casting?
I am mostly interested
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:00 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Do you at least agree that vector-vector subregs make sense, or is that
part
wrong
Hello,
new version of the patch. Note that for the simplification from
{-1,-1}?a:b to a, I removed the test that b has no side effects and call
pedantic_omit_one_operand_loc instead.
Bootstrap + testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-03-19 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc
Hello,
the following patch passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I
don't see any particular reason to forbid vector subregs of vectors, since
we can already do it through a scalar. And not using unspecs helps avoid
unnecessary copies.
2013-01-03 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/2013 10:08 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch extends the property that x*x is non-negative, which was
already known for floats, to integers with undefined overflow.
2013-03-19 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR tree-optimization
on the arbitrary order). I am not sure that is the best place to break the
recursion, but it seems to work.
I don't really expect the patch to be accepted as is, but it seems good
enough to start the conversation.
2013-03-19 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR rtl-optimization/55611
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
2013-03-17 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* fold-const.c (fold_cond_expr_with_comparison): Use build_zero_cst.
VEC_COND_EXPR cannot be lvalues.
(fold_ternary_loc) VEC_COND_EXPR: Call
fold_cond_expr_with_comparison
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
You mean that the VEC_COND_EXPRs can never be used as an lvalue in
the C++ frontend?
Yes, as I mention in the ChangeLog. Not just
copied the most relevant block. Folding from the front-end is
ugly, but that's how the scalar case works, and they can both move to
gimple folding together later.
Bootstrap + testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-03-17 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/
* fold-const.c
advantage of it, that's probably a
bit questionable indeed.
Thank you for the comment.
I successfully regtested the attached trivial patch on x86_64-linux-gnu:
2013-03-16 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1) VEC_CONCAT:
Restrict
reuse this operand. If not, I
probably got the patch wrong.
int is getting small to store one bit per vector element (V32QI...) so I
switched to hwint after checking that Zadeck's patches don't touch this.
Bootstrap + testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-03-17 Marc Glisse marc.gli
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:
this patch lets the compiler try to rewrite:
(vec_concat (vec_select x [a]) (vec_select x [b]))
as:
vec_select x [a b]
or even just x if appropriate.
[...]
Why not generalizing to all kinds of VEC_SELECTs
and having a single gimplification call at the end (the
time wasted should be quite limited).
(Note that I encourage the efforts to simplify the gimple interface, I am
just taking the occasion to ask a vaguely related question)
--
Marc Glisse
with myriads of weird tree codes etc. isn't
IMHO desirable.
Wouldn't that prevent from using those builtins in constant expressions?
That seems undesirable. Maybe an alternative could be to push some of the
functionality from potential_constant_expression_1 to the middle-end?
--
Marc Glisse
Hello,
this patch was tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. For the testcase, I randomly
picked c99.cc which I copied and c++11 - c++98, _Complex - complex, but
anything using the macro would do.
2013-02-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR libstdc++/56111
* include/std/complex
) is another
argument in this direction. On the other hand, it is there, we might as
well document it.
2013-02-13 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
* doc/extend.texi (Vector Extensions): Document ?: in C++.
--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/doc/extend.texi
): Initialize to NULL.
Maybe mention PR44938? (there may be a dup or two)
(I thought it was the name of the function that went inside the
parentheses in a ChangeLog entry)
--
Marc Glisse
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
this message is to check that I am not doing something absurd and ask for a
bit of advice.
In the attached patch, I let SLP recognize vector loads/stores just like
in the testsuite?
The testcase now generates a library call to pow, like gcc-4.6. This is
correct, but I am surprised this is considered better than leaving the
original x/(n*n) unchanged... Should that be a different PR?
--
Marc Glisse
1201 - 1300 of 1573 matches
Mail list logo
