Il 03/08/2012 17:08, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
> On 2012-08-03 08:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
0x8000 stays the
On 08/30/2012 05:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/23/2012 08:59 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
2012-08-23 Andrew MacLeod
gcc
PR target/54087
* optabs.c (expand_atomic_fetch_op_no_fallback): New. Factored code
from expand_atomic_fetch_op.
(expand_atomic_fetch_
On 08/23/2012 08:59 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> 2012-08-23 Andrew MacLeod
>
> gcc
> PR target/54087
> * optabs.c (expand_atomic_fetch_op_no_fallback): New. Factored code
> from expand_atomic_fetch_op.
> (expand_atomic_fetch_op): iTry atomic_{add|sub} operations in term
On 08/03/2012 02:52 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I'll take a look at it next week unless someone gets to it first.
Andrew
OK, so maybe I sort of forgot about implementing the generic
transformation until now.
This patch bootstraps and passes all the testsuite cases. Factored out
a little co
On 08/03/2012 02:14 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2012-08-03 11:02, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Nice, so we can go with full [snip]
Unless we take Andrew's suggestion to simply do this in optabs.c instead.
Which is probably better.
Indeed. However,
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-08-03 11:02, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Nice, so we can go with full [snip]
>
> Unless we take Andrew's suggestion to simply do this in optabs.c instead.
> Which is probably better.
Indeed. However, I'm not that familiar with this part
On 2012-08-03 11:02, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Nice, so we can go with full [snip]
Unless we take Andrew's suggestion to simply do this in optabs.c instead.
Which is probably better.
r~
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
0x8000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in
the code stream.
>>>
>>> So? Did you think the xadd will trap?
>>
>> No, but can we
On 2012-08-03 08:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
>>> 0x8000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in
>>> the
On 08/03/2012 10:40 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
0x8000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in
the code stream.
So? Did you think the xadd will trap?
Is there
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
>> 0x8000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in
>> the code stream.
>
> So? Did you think the xadd w
On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value
> 0x8000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in
> the code stream.
So? Did you think the xadd will trap?
r~
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>> We can implement atomic_fetch_sub with atomic_fetch_add and inverted
>>> operand 2. However, we have to prevent overflows wit
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> We can implement atomic_fetch_sub with atomic_fetch_add and inverted
>> operand 2. However, we have to prevent overflows with negation, so
>> only const_int operand 2 is allowed in the exp
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> We can implement atomic_fetch_sub with atomic_fetch_add and inverted
> operand 2. However, we have to prevent overflows with negation, so
> only const_int operand 2 is allowed in the expander.
>
> 2012-08-02 Uros Bizjak
>
> PR target
Hello!
We can implement atomic_fetch_sub with atomic_fetch_add and inverted
operand 2. However, we have to prevent overflows with negation, so
only const_int operand 2 is allowed in the expander.
2012-08-02 Uros Bizjak
PR target/54087
* config/i386/sync.md (atomic_fetch_sub):
16 matches
Mail list logo