This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > Back to converting x86 to post-reload compare elimination pass. > > Arithmetic operations in x86_64 can implicitly zero extend the result, > and set flags according to the non-extended result. Following testcase > should exercise both features: > > 2012-04-24 ?Uros Bizjak ?<ubizjak@gmail.com> > > ? ? ? ?* compare-elim.c (try_eliminate_compare): Also handle operands with > ? ? ? ?implicit extensions. > > Patch is lightly tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, together with attached > WIP patch. > > Opinions? Since it looks quite safe, is it OK for mainline? The full bootstrap and regression test passed on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {,-m32} with attached x86 WIP patch (the updated patch disables some interfering peephole2s). I am confident that compare-elim.c change doesn't cause regressions, so this message is a formal request for a patch inclusion. BTW: This is also the first time x86 bootstrapped with enabled post-reload compare elimination pass. Uros.
Attachment:
x86-wip.diff.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |