This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing part in gimple strength reduction
- From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "bin.cheng" <bin dot cheng at arm dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:30:32 -0500
- Subject: RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing part in gimple strength reduction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <003f01cea7a9$8e984ae0$abc8e0a0$ at arm dot com> <CAFiYyc0aAW99axqPLW5vbC-+g2385aX-CsCMD4ws72GUj=b-Wg at mail dot gmail dot com> <1378685738 dot 3730 dot 16 dot camel at gnopaine> <004801cead25$724765c0$56d63140$ at arm dot com> <1378740018 dot 3730 dot 21 dot camel at gnopaine> <1378740932 dot 3730 dot 23 dot camel at gnopaine> <004901ceadf9$195f9700$4c1ec500$ at arm dot com>
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be in other kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later.
> >> OK, I see now. I had thought this was handled by fold_build2, but
> >> apparently not. I guess all T2's formerly handled were already sizetype
> >> as expected. Thanks for the explanation!
> > So, wouldn't it suffice to change t2 to fold_convert (sizetype, t2) in
> > the argument list to fold_build2? It's picking nits, but that would be
> > slightly more efficient.
> Hi Bill,
> This is the 2nd version of patch with your comments incorporated.
> Bootstrap and re-test on x86. Re-test on ARM ongoing. Is it ok if tests pass?
Looks good to me! Thanks, Bin.