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: [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert at iram dot es>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Mark Colby <markc at liferacing dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 03:53:59 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???
References: <80BF44D5D0EFF249A5522B3EFE78C0C50142A60A@2000server.aerltd.com> <4B4462DE.90001@redhat.com> <20100106151805.GE2855@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20100107084853.GA11655@iram.es>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > apparently rs6000_emit_set_long_const needs work.
> > 	lis 3,0x8034
> > 	extsw 3,3
> > or
> > 	li 3,0x401a
> > 	sldi 3,3,17
> > etc. do IMHO the same.
> 
> Huh? I don't think so:
> 
> - first one loads 0xffff_ffff_8034_0000 in r3, and the extsw looks redundant

I meant lis 3,0x8034; rldicl 3,3,0,32 for the first case, sorry for mixing
sign extension with zero extension.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- [PATCH] ppc64 rs6000_emit_set_long_const improvements
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???
  - From: Mark Colby
- Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???
  - From: Andrew Haley
- [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4???
  - From: Gabriel Paubert

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