This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- From: Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "patches at linaro dot org" <patches at linaro dot org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:28:30 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- References: <4F22CBB2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4F26B687.email@example.com> <4F27FAC0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CACUk7=VFbmkQOTo3ZXA2FMyt14zhiAonArBghFhBrBdvBQGvHg@mail.gmail.com> <4F3259EF.email@example.com>
On 08/02/12 11:18, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I've tried to do this, but it can't be done by a straight translation
because we don't have the insns available to do it. As I understand it,
all "predicable" instructions automatically get a cond_exec variant, but
the only if_then_else I could find (it's hard to grep because
if_then_else occurs many times in attributes) is in the conditional move
instruction. Have I missed something?
Ok, I missed the various patterns like if_arith_move.
Unfortunately, these don't work in Thumb mode (no IT block), and I'd
have to add arith-shift variants, I think, for ARM mode to work.
Hmmmm ... I'll try again.