On 05/11/2016 02:52 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:42 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Earlier in the discussion you mentioned the intention to remove
these costs. Not
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 09:42 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>Earlier in the discussion you mentioned the intention to remove
> >>these costs. Nothing else in the function does cost
On 05/11/2016 09:42 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Earlier in the discussion you mentioned the intention to remove
these costs. Nothing else in the function does cost calculations -
maybe you can try placing a gcc_unreachable into the case
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:05:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/10/2016 03:06 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >+ int cost_of_and;
> >+ int cost_of_zero_ext;
> >+
> >+ cost_of_and = rtx_cost (x, mode, in_code, 1, speed_p);
> >+ cost_of_zero_ext =
On 05/10/2016 03:06 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
+ int cost_of_and;
+ int cost_of_zero_ext;
+
+ cost_of_and = rtx_cost (x, mode, in_code, 1, speed_p);
+ cost_of_zero_ext = rtx_cost (temp, mode, in_code, 1, speed_p);
+ if (
New version of the patch including the changes Jeff requested.
* Reformatted code.
* Including test cases (unfortunately requires lp64 although the
feature does not).
* Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390, s390x, x86_64.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:20:05AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
