On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > Does the patch also help to optimise my example above? If so,
> > it sounds like a good thing for that reason alone.
>
> Nope, it actually regresses code produced, causing an extra instruction
> to be used where it doesn't have to:
>
> --- test
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I don't think we should we restrict this to (plus (mult X Y) Z),
> >> > since addr
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think we should we restrict this to (plus (mult X Y) Z),
>> > since addresses can be more complicated than that. One way to
>> > sea
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we should we restrict this to (plus (mult X Y) Z),
> > since addresses can be more complicated than that. One way to
> > search for all MULTs is:
> >
> >sub
Re: [PATCH] lra: Canonicalize mult to shift in address reloads
Hi Christophe,
On 28/08/2020 10:16, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 17:15, Alex Coplan wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review, both.
> >
> > On 26/08/2020 09:19, Vl
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 17:15, Alex Coplan wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review, both.
>
> On 26/08/2020 09:19, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > Alex Coplan writes:
> > >
> > > Minor nit, should be formatted as:
> > >
> > > static rtx
>
On 2020-08-26 11:15 a.m., Alex Coplan wrote:
Thanks for the review, both.
Please find a reworked version of the patch attached incorporating
Richard's feedback.
Testing:
* Bootstrap and regtest on aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
arm-none-linux-gnueabihf, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu: no regressions.
Thanks for the review, both.
On 26/08/2020 09:19, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Alex Coplan writes:
> >
> > Minor nit, should be formatted as:
> >
> > static rtx
> > canonicalize_reload_addr (rtx addr)
> Sorry for missing this. Alex, it shou
On 2020-08-26 5:06 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
Alex Coplan writes:
Minor nit, should be formatted as:
static rtx
canonicalize_reload_addr (rtx addr)
Sorry for missing this. Alex, it should be fixed anyway.
I don't think we should we restrict this to (plus (mult X Y) Z),
since addresse
Alex Coplan writes:
> Hello,
>
> Inside a (mem) RTX, it is canonical to write multiplications by powers
> of two using a (mult) [0]. For example, given the following C function:
>
> long f(long *p, long x)
> {
> return p[x];
> }
>
> AArch64 GCC generates the following RTL insn (in final):
>
>
On 2020-08-25 6:18 a.m., Alex Coplan wrote:
The motivation here is to be able to remove several redundant patterns
in the AArch64 backend. See the previous thread [1] for context.
Testing:
* Bootstrapped and regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
* New unit test whic
Hello,
Inside a (mem) RTX, it is canonical to write multiplications by powers
of two using a (mult) [0]. For example, given the following C function:
long f(long *p, long x)
{
return p[x];
}
AArch64 GCC generates the following RTL insn (in final):
(set (reg/i:DI 0 x0)
(mem:DI (plus:DI
12 matches
Mail list logo
