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: Truncate optimisation question


Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> writes:
>> Well, I think making the simplify-rtx code conditional on the target
>> would be the wrong way to go.  If we really can't live with it being
>> unconditional then I think we should revert it.  But like I say I think
>> it would be better to make combine recognise the redundancy even with
>> the new form.  (Or as I say, longer term, not to rely on combine to
>> eliminate redundant extensions.)  But I don't have time to do that myself...
>
> It helps x86 so we won't revert it.  My fear is that we'll need to add code in 
> other places to RISCify back the result of this "simplification".

Sorry, realised I didn't respond to this yesterday.  I wasn't suggesting
we just revert and walk away.  ISTR the original suggestion was to patch
combine instead of simplify-rtx.c, so we could back to that.

Thanks,
Richard


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