| Message ID | 20230203102208.53215-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldicX | expand |
Hi, Gental ping these patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611286.html BR, Jeff (Jiufu) Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Hi, > > For a given constant, it would be profitable if we can use 2 insns to build. > This patch enables more constants building through 2 insns: one is "li or lis", > another is 'rldicl, rldicr or rldic'. > Through checking and analyzing the characters of the insns "li/lis;rldicX", > all the possible constant values are considered by this patch. > > Previously, a patch is posted, but it is too large. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601276.html > As suggested, I split it into this series. > > Considering the functionality and size, 4 patches are split as below: > 1. Support the constants which can be built by "li;rotldi" > Both positive and negative values from insn "li" are analyzed. > 2. Support the constants which can be built by "lis;rotldi" > We only need to analyze the negative value from "lis". > And this patch uses more code to check leading 1s and tailing 0s from "lis". > 3. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldicl/rldicr": > Leverage the APIs defined/analyzed in patches 1 and 2, > this patch checks the characters for the mask of "rldicl/rldicr" > to support more constants. > 4. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldic": > The mask of "rldic" is relatively complicated, it is analyzed in this > patch to support more constants. > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu)
Hi, I would like to ping these patches. [0/4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611286.html [1/4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611287.html [2/4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611288.html [3/4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611289.html [4/4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611290.html Any sugguestions for the code functionality/style or to make it easy for review, please point out, thanks in advance! BR, Jeff (Jiufu) Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Hi, > > Gental ping these patches: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611286.html > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > > > Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> For a given constant, it would be profitable if we can use 2 insns to build. >> This patch enables more constants building through 2 insns: one is "li or lis", >> another is 'rldicl, rldicr or rldic'. >> Through checking and analyzing the characters of the insns "li/lis;rldicX", >> all the possible constant values are considered by this patch. >> >> Previously, a patch is posted, but it is too large. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601276.html >> As suggested, I split it into this series. >> >> Considering the functionality and size, 4 patches are split as below: >> 1. Support the constants which can be built by "li;rotldi" >> Both positive and negative values from insn "li" are analyzed. >> 2. Support the constants which can be built by "lis;rotldi" >> We only need to analyze the negative value from "lis". >> And this patch uses more code to check leading 1s and tailing 0s from "lis". >> 3. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldicl/rldicr": >> Leverage the APIs defined/analyzed in patches 1 and 2, >> this patch checks the characters for the mask of "rldicl/rldicr" >> to support more constants. >> 4. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldic": >> The mask of "rldic" is relatively complicated, it is analyzed in this >> patch to support more constants. >> >> BR, >> Jeff (Jiufu)
Gentle ping... Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Hi, > > I would like to ping these patches. > [0/4] > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611286.html > [1/4] > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611287.html > [2/4] > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611288.html > [3/4] > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611289.html > [4/4] > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611290.html > > Any sugguestions for the code functionality/style or to make > it easy for review, please point out, thanks in advance! > > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > > Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Gental ping these patches: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611286.html >> >> BR, >> Jeff (Jiufu) >> >> >> Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For a given constant, it would be profitable if we can use 2 insns to build. >>> This patch enables more constants building through 2 insns: one is "li or lis", >>> another is 'rldicl, rldicr or rldic'. >>> Through checking and analyzing the characters of the insns "li/lis;rldicX", >>> all the possible constant values are considered by this patch. >>> >>> Previously, a patch is posted, but it is too large. >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601276.html >>> As suggested, I split it into this series. >>> >>> Considering the functionality and size, 4 patches are split as below: >>> 1. Support the constants which can be built by "li;rotldi" >>> Both positive and negative values from insn "li" are analyzed. >>> 2. Support the constants which can be built by "lis;rotldi" >>> We only need to analyze the negative value from "lis". >>> And this patch uses more code to check leading 1s and tailing 0s from "lis". >>> 3. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldicl/rldicr": >>> Leverage the APIs defined/analyzed in patches 1 and 2, >>> this patch checks the characters for the mask of "rldicl/rldicr" >>> to support more constants. >>> 4. Support the constants which can be built by "li/lis;rldic": >>> The mask of "rldic" is relatively complicated, it is analyzed in this >>> patch to support more constants. >>> >>> BR, >>> Jeff (Jiufu)