This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- To: Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "patches at linaro dot org" <patches at linaro dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:19:49 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- References: <4F22CBB2.email@example.com> <4F26B687.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4F27FAC0.email@example.com>
I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
way till reload and "work". AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
before reload . The documentation doesn't appear to mention this,
therefore I would like to see if the cond_exec's can be recast as
if_then_else forms from expand rather than these forms. Has this
survived bootstrap and testing ?
> + /* If we're optimizing for size, we prefer the libgcc calls. */
> + if (optimize_size)
> + FAIL;
In addition you want to replace optimize_size with
optimize_function_for_size_p in these cases.