This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add single/double IEEE precission FPU support.
- From: Joern Wolfgang Rennecke <gnu at amylaar dot uk>
- To: Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu dot Zissulescu at synopsys dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: "Francois dot Bedard at synopsys dot com" <Francois dot Bedard at synopsys dot com>, "jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com" <jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:41:58 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add single/double IEEE precission FPU support.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1454335022-21760-1-git-send-email-claziss at synopsys dot com> <56B13316 dot 9090903 at amylaar dot uk> <56B4AEA1 dot 6090607 at amylaar dot uk> <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE8966176790 at DE02WEMBXB dot internal dot synopsys dot com> <56BADB05 dot 4020100 at amylaar dot uk> <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE8966176934 at DE02WEMBXB dot internal dot synopsys dot com>
On 10/02/16 13:31, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
Please find attached the amended patch for FPU instructions.
Ok to apply?
+(define_insn "*cmpdf_fpu"
I'm wondering - could you compare with +zero using a literal (adding an
alternative)?
(No need to hold up the main patch, but you can consider it for a
follow-up patch)
(define_insn "*cmpsf_fpu_uneq"
+ [(set (reg:CC_FPU_UNEQ CC_REG)
+ (compare:CC_FPU_UNEQ
+ (match_operand:DF 0 "even_register_operand" "r")
Typo: probably should be *cmpdf_fpu_uneq
+ case CC_FPUmode:
+ return !((code == LTGT) || (code == UNEQ));
`
strictly speaking, this shouldn't accept unsigned comparisons,
although I can't think of a scenario where these would be presented
in this mode,
and the failure mode would just be an abort in get_arc_condition_code.
Otherwise, this is OK.