From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7194 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2010 10:06:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 7117 invoked by uid 48); 28 Apr 2010 10:06:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100428100644.7116.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/43862] GCC doesn't use 16-bit armv5te multiplies when possible In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg02942.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 10:06 ------- * I don't see why smulbb, smultb, smulbt, smultt shouldn't be generated for their respective cases. So, yes that's correct. * smulwy is not supported in the backend, so that's a feature enhancement * smlawy is again not supported in the backend and anyone implementing this should note that overflow in the accumulate step is a part of the saturated Q bit. Also it isn't correct to be generating smlawy in the cases mentioned there. * smlaxy is something that could be generated in a few of the occasions but the PCS defeats us in these circumstances because we assume that the values passed in are appropriately zero /sign extended. -- ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |enhancement Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keywords| |missed-optimization Known to fail| |4.5.0 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 10:06:44 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43862