On 11/22/19 6:05 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Indeed, this is a different case, an overflow test that results in one
> CMP insn. I think, we should check if the second operand is either 0
> (then proceed as it is now), or if the second operand equals first
> operand of PLUS insn, then we actually emit
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:39 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> On 11/22/19 3:04 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:58 PM Bernd Schmidt
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> A patch I posted recently fixes combine to take costs of JUMP_INSNs into
> >> account. That causes the pr30315 test to fail with
On 11/22/19 3:04 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:58 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> A patch I posted recently fixes combine to take costs of JUMP_INSNs into
>> account. That causes the pr30315 test to fail with -m32, since the cost
>> of an add that sets the flags is estimated too
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:58 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> A patch I posted recently fixes combine to take costs of JUMP_INSNs into
> account. That causes the pr30315 test to fail with -m32, since the cost
> of an add that sets the flags is estimated too high.
>
> The following seems to fix it. Boo
A patch I posted recently fixes combine to take costs of JUMP_INSNs into
account. That causes the pr30315 test to fail with -m32, since the cost
of an add that sets the flags is estimated too high.
The following seems to fix it. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, ok?
Bernd
* config/i386
