On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:21 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> > From: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:12:26 +0100
>
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:35 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for
> From: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:12:26 +0100
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:35 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for the
> > comparison to use that result than its input, so we don't
> > ext
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:12:26AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:35 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:12:26AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:35 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for the
> > comparison to use that result than its input, so we don't
> > exte
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:35 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for the
> comparison to use that result than its input, so we don't
> extend the lifetime of the input. Also, an additional use
> of the result is more likely cheape
If we're not going to eliminate the clz, it's better for the
comparison to use that result than its input, so we don't
extend the lifetime of the input. Also, an additional use
of the result is more likely cheaper than a compare of the
input, in particular considering that the clz may have made
av
