From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829CA3858D39 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:08:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 829CA3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879AB12FC; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.110.72]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 593373F71A; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:08:01 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: Segher Boessenkool Mail-Followup-To: Segher Boessenkool ,Jeff Law via Gcc-patches , Tamar Christina , Roger Sayle , Jeff Law , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Jeff Law via Gcc-patches , Tamar Christina , Roger Sayle , Jeff Law Subject: Re: [PATCH] combine: Try harder to form zero_extends [PR106594] References: <000c01d94ec7$a6921430$f3b63c90$@nextmovesoftware.com> <20230304221749.GK25951@gate.crashing.org> <3b1ed616-5d90-7a66-63b5-bdb5e320eebf@gmail.com> <20230306135850.GN25951@gate.crashing.org> Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:08:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20230306135850.GN25951@gate.crashing.org> (Segher Boessenkool's message of "Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:58:50 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-26.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_LINKBAIT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Segher Boessenkool writes: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> How about the patch below? > > What about it? What would make it any better than the previous? It does what Jeff suggested in the quoted message: work within the existing extract/make_compound_operation scheme rather than try to opt out of it. Richard