From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25559 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2018 15:52:14 -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 25550 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2018 15:52:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:52:13 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D34DEC04BE04; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:52:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-120-162.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.162]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F2818A5E; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:52:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w1RFqAPi017363; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:52:10 -0500 From: DJ Delorie To: "Sebastian Perta" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RL78 one_cmplhi2 improvement In-Reply-To: <000101d3afe0$523338a0$f699a9e0$@renesas.com> (sebastian.perta@renesas.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg01508.txt.bz2 "Sebastian Perta" writes: > Is this similar to what you had in mind? Yes. Did it affect code size in any of the larger tests? I was hoping that it wouldn't force too much into 8-bit registers and cause more moves to be needed elsewhere. (and even if it didn't, I think this one feels "more correct" than the other, as it retains more of the "I'm 16 bits"-ness of the operand) >> If it doesn't work out, consider this patch approved, though. > Can I checkin now? Yes. Thanks! Make sure the indentation is correct, of course. It wasn't in the email, and that confused me at first.