From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17750 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2012 11:42:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17741 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2012 11:42:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:41:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6BBfaYM002244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:36 -0400 Received: from zalov.redhat.com (vpn1-5-205.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.205]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6BBfYVg025298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:41:36 -0400 Received: from zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zalov.redhat.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6BBfS0G008299; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:41:33 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q6BBfMlZ008298; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:41:22 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:42:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tom de Vries Cc: Eric Botcazou , Tom de Vries , Paolo Bonzini , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Bernd Schmidt Subject: Re: new sign/zero extension elimination pass Message-ID: <20120711114121.GB1844@laptop.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <4CBC698B.3080204@codesourcery.com> <4CDCF947.1030008@codesourcery.com> <201011131050.53898.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4FFD55B4.6060500@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FFD55B4.6060500@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:30:12PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > I've done the following: > - refactored the pass such that it now scans at most twice over all > instructions. > - updated the patch to be applicable to current trunk > - updated the motivating example to a more applicable one (as discussed in > this thread), and added that one as test-case. > - added a part in the header comment illustrating the working of the pass > on the motivating example. > > bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64 and i686. > > build and reg-tested on mips, mips64, and arm. How does this relate to the ree.c pass we already have? Why is not REE sufficient for you? Having two different zero/sign extension elimination passes would be really wierd. Jakub