This is the mail archive of the 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] Loop distribution improvements

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Can you factor out a function that returns
A proper qimode value if possible or null and
Use it in both places?

Like this?

You should be able to remove zero, minus one and constructor special
casing, no?  Ok, maybe not constructor handling, but at least move

No, because the function is only handling BITS_PER_UNIT == 8 && CHAR_BIT == 8,
plus is unnecessarily expensive for the common case of storing 0.

But if you want, I can move all that integer_zerop / real_zerop /
CONSTRUCTOR / integer_all_onesp handling into the function.

BTW, the integer_all_onesp stuff is broken for this from what I can see, for complex
numbers it returns true for -1 + 0i where all bytes aren't 0xff, so we need
to rule out COMPLEX_CSTs (or do integer_all_onesp on each part instead).
And TYPE_PRECISION on VECTOR_CSTs won't be what we are looking for.

Shouldn't we change integer_all_onesp to do what its name says and create a separate integer_minus_onep for the single place I could find where it would break, the folding of x * -1 ?

Marc Glisse

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