From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73357 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2016 23:42:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 73257 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2016 23:42:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=amended X-HELO: mailrelay1.public.one.com Received: from mailrelay1.public.one.com (HELO mailrelay1.public.one.com) (91.198.169.124) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:42:05 +0000 X-HalOne-Cookie: bf5aa5029bc95402249f678565109d346cf1703d X-HalOne-ID: 35d3b7fc-d1e2-11e5-8bea-b8ca3afa9d73 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [91.135.11.213]) by smtpfilter1.public.one.com (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add single/double IEEE precission FPU support. To: Claudiu Zissulescu , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <1454335022-21760-1-git-send-email-claziss@synopsys.com> <56B13316.9090903@amylaar.uk> <56B4AEA1.6090607@amylaar.uk> <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE8966176790@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com> <56BADB05.4020100@amylaar.uk> <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE8966176934@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com> Cc: "Francois.Bedard@synopsys.com" , "jeremy.bennett@embecosm.com" From: Joern Wolfgang Rennecke Message-ID: <56BE6DC6.4030701@amylaar.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:42:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE8966176934@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2 On 10/02/16 13:31, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote: > Please find attached the amended patch for FPU instructions. > > Ok to apply? +(define_insn "*cmpdf_fpu" I'm wondering - could you compare with +zero using a literal (adding an alternative)? (No need to hold up the main patch, but you can consider it for a follow-up patch) (define_insn "*cmpsf_fpu_uneq" + [(set (reg:CC_FPU_UNEQ CC_REG) + (compare:CC_FPU_UNEQ + (match_operand:DF 0 "even_register_operand" "r") Typo: probably should be *cmpdf_fpu_uneq + case CC_FPUmode: + return !((code == LTGT) || (code == UNEQ)); ` strictly speaking, this shouldn't accept unsigned comparisons, although I can't think of a scenario where these would be presented in this mode, and the failure mode would just be an abort in get_arc_condition_code. Otherwise, this is OK.