This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Type promotion pass and elimination of zext/sext
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 13:45:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Type promotion pass and elimination of zext/sext
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAELXzTNsiJoQpT7m=7Y20t3jubE=jy3nyiZBx0mQDyeHBHomJg at mail dot gmail dot com> <26050f98-de77-e079-ea08-bb1e212b1cb5 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3PBggxPPCrFjftGRkPSbPSJucp46RRPgfZ3MVqO+Rw_Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAELXzTNYzY5a0rQejx9zU_Lio_wHGB3vBLEeCap5UyzKT_ew8Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
<kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> So what does this mean for this pass? It means that we need to think
>> about the immediate goal we want to fulfil - which might be to just
>> promote things that we can fully promote, avoiding the necessity to
>> prevent passes from undoing our work. That said - we need a set of
>> testcases the pass should enable to being optimized better than without it
>> (I myself see the idea of promoting on GIMPLE according to PROMOTE_MODE
>> as good design cleanup towards pushing GIMPLE farther out).
>
> I will appreciate any test-cases you think that think should work (optimized).
You were coming from the ARM sign-/zero-elimination side and IIRC this
was previously
stuff you tried in VRP. Didn't you have testcases for the desired
sign-/zero-extension elimination
side from that time?
> I will also try to gather test-cases based on testing/benchmarking.
That's great.
Thanks.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Kugan