This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [alpha] Request for help wrt gcc bugs 27468, 27469

From: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
To: Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:43:43 -0800
Subject: Re: [alpha] Request for help wrt gcc bugs 27468, 27469
References: <b4198de60912021446l4c1f5b20sfee47ef9c4109a48@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/02/2009 02:46 PM, Matt Turner wrote:

Hi,
Could someone please take a look at these two bugs?

27468 - sign-extending Alpha instructions not exploited
27469 - zero extension not eliminated [on Alpha]

Andrew Pinski has confirmed both of them three and a half years ago.
My uninformed feeling after seeing bugs 8603 and 42113 fixed is that
both of them are relatively simple.

They aren't.

As originally suggested in the PR, these are thought to be addressed by the "ZEE" pass, which still hasn't been committed to mainline. And definitely won't be for 4.5.

The last iteration of the patch appears to have been

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00088.html

which also did something stupid like move the patch down into the i386 subdirectory. It'll never be applied in that form if I have anything to say on the subject, because obviously this is a generic sort of optimization.

r~

References:
- [alpha] Request for help wrt gcc bugs 27468, 27469
  - From: Matt Turner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]