On 01/21/2015 11:52 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On January 21, 2015 10:23:56 PM CET, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Since 16bit byteswap can be done via an 8 bit rotation (and it is the
canonical form),
the check for an optab only
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:43 AM
On 01/21/2015 11:52 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
I was asking for the generic expander to consider bswapHI. Rotates are
certainly more likely to get combined with sth else.
Maybe. Alternately, don't
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On January 5, 2015 3:54:40 PM CET, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
From: Oleg Endo [mailto:oleg.e...@t-online.de]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:25 PM
I've just tried disabling the 'rotlhi3'
-Original Message-
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:24 AM
To: Thomas Preud'homme; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; 'Richard Biener'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't check for optab for 16bit bswap
On 12/29/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
On January 21, 2015 10:23:56 PM CET, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/29/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Since 16bit byteswap can be done via an 8 bit rotation (and it is the
canonical form),
the check for an optab only serves to prevent the bswap optimization
for
targets
On 12/29/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Since 16bit byteswap can be done via an 8 bit rotation (and it is the
canonical form),
the check for an optab only serves to prevent the bswap optimization for
targets that don't have a 16bit byteswap (but do have a rotation
instruction).
From: Oleg Endo [mailto:oleg.e...@t-online.de]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:25 PM
I've just tried disabling the 'rotlhi3' pattern and __builtin_bswap16
expands into shift + and + or (as expected).
Thus, I don't think the patch will make something worse (than it
already
.L42:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 14:54 +, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Oleg Endo [mailto:oleg.e...@t-online.de]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:25 PM
I've just tried disabling the 'rotlhi3' pattern and __builtin_bswap16
expands into shift + and + or (as expected).
Thus, I don't think
On January 5, 2015 3:54:40 PM CET, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
From: Oleg Endo [mailto:oleg.e...@t-online.de]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:25 PM
I've just tried disabling the 'rotlhi3' pattern and __builtin_bswap16
expands into shift + and + or (as expected).
On December 29, 2014 7:44:13 PM CET, Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 17:53 +, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:09 PM
OK, but what about targets without a rotation optab? Is the
On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 16:22 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On December 29, 2014 7:44:13 PM CET, Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 17:53 +, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:09 PM
On December 29, 2014 3:04:36 PM CET, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
Since 16bit byteswap can be done via an 8 bit rotation (and it is the
canonical form),
the check for an optab only serves to prevent the bswap optimization
for
targets that don't have a 16bit byteswap (but do
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:09 PM
OK, but what about targets without a rotation optab? Is the fallback
expansion reasonable in all cases?
To be honest I haven't checked. I thought being a treecode means it
can always be expanded, using
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 17:53 +, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:09 PM
OK, but what about targets without a rotation optab? Is the fallback
expansion reasonable in all cases?
To be honest I haven't
14 matches
Mail list logo
