From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>
To: Jie Zhang <zhangjie@magima.com.cn>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: A question about integer promotion in GCC
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409020811190.26807@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4136D20A.7010609@magima.com.cn>
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Jie Zhang wrote:
> According to this, shouldn't it be:
>
> return (int)x << 8 | (int)x >> 8;
>
> Maybe it has no performance benefit. But it make the tree dump result
> conforming to the standard and improve the readability of the final assembly
> output when being compiled using -O2 option. How about your thoughts?
The current function of tree dumps is for debugging the compiler, not as a
representation of source. Various optimisations are performed on the
trees generated, both in the process of generating them to avoid
generating unnecessary garbage, and as part of fold(), before they get to
the first tree dumps. (In this case, a right shift of a short can be
represented directly on the short, whereas a left shift of a short
cannot.)
There is a mood towards doing less such optimisations at parse time (and
generally reducing the front end / middle end overlap), in particular
reducing parse-time folding to constant folding only and causing the
remaining optimisations fold() does to be done later on GIMPLE. This is
however a substantial task to do while being sure that each change is an
incremental improvement that does not cause regressions, as every useful
transformation fold() does would need implementing at a later stage, and
the result would need careful checking to be sure that all such
transformations had been properly implemented, before any can be removed
from fold().
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-02 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-02 7:56 Jie Zhang
2004-09-02 8:09 ` Jie Zhang
2004-09-02 8:19 ` Joseph S. Myers [this message]
2004-09-03 8:33 ` Jie Zhang
2004-09-06 8:01 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-09-06 8:43 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-06 8:52 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-09-06 9:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-06 9:54 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-09-06 11:59 ` Joseph S. Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0409020811190.26807@digraph.polyomino.org.uk \
--to=jsm@polyomino.org.uk \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=zhangjie@magima.com.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).