Re: Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-03 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> You can handle floats as followup but some testcases that shouldn't be >> optimized for the INT_MIN / unsigned case would be nice. > > > New version, that does a bit more. -

Re: Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-02 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote: You can handle floats as followup but some testcases that shouldn't be optimized for the INT_MIN / unsigned case would be nice. New version, that does a bit more. Bootstrap+regtest on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. 2017-11-03 Marc Glisse

Re: Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> just a little tweak to that transformation. There is some overlap between >>>

Re: Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-02 Thread Marc Glisse
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, just a little tweak to that transformation. There is some overlap between the 2 versions, but it seemed easier to handle the NOP case (including the case without convert

Re: Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > just a little tweak to that transformation. There is some overlap between > the 2 versions, but it seemed easier to handle the NOP case (including the > case without convert and the vector case) separately from

Generalize -(-X) a little

2017-11-01 Thread Marc Glisse
Hello, just a little tweak to that transformation. There is some overlap between the 2 versions, but it seemed easier to handle the NOP case (including the case without convert and the vector case) separately from the narrowing / sign-extending scalar integer case. At some point it would be