On 2023-06-13 17:18, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for your valuable comments!
David Edelsohn writes:
...
Do you have any measurement of how expensive it is to test all of
these additional methods to generate a constant? How much does this
affect the
compile time?
Hi David,
Thanks for your valuable comments!
David Edelsohn writes:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
> We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
>
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
> We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to
> check.
> For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional
> shift.
>
>
Hi,
This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional shift.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
Hi,
This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional shift.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk or
