== Progress ==
* Zero/sign extension elimination (TCWG-15) (10/10) - Posted two patches for review and gone through few iterations - Looked at flag_wrapv and !flag_strict_overflow regressions * ARM (and possibly some other targets) truncates negative values and this makes them incompatible with the value range in SSA. One solution is to ignore any gimple statements that load negative constants when eliminating zero/sign extension elimination. * We also loose the OVF(INF) information in tree when they are converted to wide_int and propagated to SSA. - Testing on a target that support PTR_EXTEND * Trying to set-up x86_64-linux with -mx32. Still not able to compile as I am getting various errors in glibc. Looking into it,
== Plan == * Upstream zero/sign extension elimination activities
Testing on a target that support PTR_EXTEND
AARCH64 ILP32 is also a target which does PTR_EXTEND.
Thanks, Andrew Pinski
-----Original Message----- From: linaro-toolchain-bounces@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-toolchain-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Kugan Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:04 PM To: Linaro Toolchain Subject: [ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 June 2014
== Progress ==
* Zero/sign extension elimination (TCWG-15) (10/10) - Posted two patches for review and gone through few iterations - Looked at flag_wrapv and !flag_strict_overflow regressions * ARM (and possibly some other targets) truncates negative values and this makes them incompatible with the value range in SSA. One solution is to ignore any gimple statements that load negative constants when eliminating zero/sign extension elimination. * We also loose the OVF(INF) information in tree when they are converted to wide_int and propagated to SSA. - Testing on a target that support PTR_EXTEND * Trying to set-up x86_64-linux with -mx32. Still not able to compile as I am getting various errors in glibc. Looking into it,
== Plan == * Upstream zero/sign extension elimination activities
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
On 30/06/14 13:11, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
Testing on a target that support PTR_EXTEND
AARCH64 ILP32 is also a target which does PTR_EXTEND.
Thanks for that. I actually wanted to test on a target which will return -1,1,0 for SUBREG_PROMOTED_UNSIGNED_P. Lookigg at gcc code, it will happen only when #define POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED -1. That means ia64 and s390 seems to be the only targets to test. But Jakub suggested ia64-hpux or x86_64-linux -mx32. Not sure how x86_64-linux -mx32 will fall into this.
Thanks, kugan
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
-
Kugan -
Pinski, Andrew