On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Kugan wrote:
On 07/01/14 23:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Kugan wrote:
[snip]
Note that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is wrong here. I think you are
handling this wrong still. From a quick look you want to avoid
the actual promotion for
reg_1 =
ping ?
I have reorganised the last patch and now handling only
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR. Once it is reviewed and
necessary changes are made, I will address the other cases as a separate
patch (when it reaches that stage).
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
+2014-01-07 Kugan
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Kugan wrote:
ping ?
I have reorganised the last patch and now handling only
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR. Once it is reviewed and
necessary changes are made, I will address the other cases as a separate
patch (when it reaches that stage).
Note that
On 07/01/14 23:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Kugan wrote:
[snip]
Note that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is wrong here. I think you are
handling this wrong still. From a quick look you want to avoid
the actual promotion for
reg_1 =
when reg_1 is promoted and thus the
tem = (char) 255 + (char) 1;
tem is always of type 'char' in GIMPLE (even if later promoted
via PROMOTE_MODE) the value-range is a 'char' value-range and thus
never will exceed [CHAR_MIN, CHAR_MAX]. The only way you can
use that directly is if you can rely on undefined behavior
tem = (char) 255 + (char) 1;
which has a value-range of [0,0] but clearly when computed in
SImode the value-range is [256, 256]. That is, VRP computes
value-ranges in the expression type, not in some arbitrary
larger type.
So what you'd have to do is take the value-ranges of the
two
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 15/10/13 23:55, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Kugan wrote:
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
I think that
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
Thanks,
Kugan
+2013-09-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah kug...@linaro.org
+
+ * dojump.c (do_compare_and_jump): Generate rtl without
+ zero/sign extension if redundant.
+ *
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Kugan wrote:
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
I think that gimple_assign_is_zero_sign_ext_redundant and its
description is somewhat confused. You seem to have two cases
here, one being NOP_EXPR
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 15/10/13 23:55, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Kugan wrote:
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00452.html
I think that gimple_assign_is_zero_sign_ext_redundant and its
description
Hi Eric,
Can you please help to review the general idea and this patch for zero
sign extension elimination with VRP?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 17/06/13 11:01, Kugan wrote:
Can you please help to review this patch? Richard reviewed the original
patch and asked it to be split into two parts. Also,
11 matches
Mail list logo