| Message ID | 57500C72.4010308@foss.arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00139.html Thanks, Kyrill On 02/06/16 11:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > I wanted to ping this patch, but checking the gcc-patches archive I see this wasn't > archived, though I have confirmed that the patch was sent out and distributed by > the mail server correctly. > > Anyway, resending... > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > On 24/05/16 14:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The int_log2 function in arm.c is not really useful since we already have a generic function for calculating >> the log2 of HOST_WIDE_INTs. The only difference in functionality is that int_log2 also asserts that the result >> is no greater than 31. >> >> This patch removes int_log2 in favour of exact_log2 and adds an assert on the result to make sure the return >> value was as expected. >> >> Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. >> >> Is this ok? Or is there something I'm missing about int_log2? >> >> Thanks, >> Kyrill >> >> 2016-05-24 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> >> >> * config/arm/arm.c (int_log2): Delete definition and prototype. >> (shift_op): Use exact_log2 instead of int_log2. >> (vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits): Likewise. >
Ping. Thanks, Kyrill On 09/06/16 12:04, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Ping. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00139.html > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > On 02/06/16 11:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> I wanted to ping this patch, but checking the gcc-patches archive I see this wasn't >> archived, though I have confirmed that the patch was sent out and distributed by >> the mail server correctly. >> >> Anyway, resending... >> >> Thanks, >> Kyrill >> >> On 24/05/16 14:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The int_log2 function in arm.c is not really useful since we already have a generic function for calculating >>> the log2 of HOST_WIDE_INTs. The only difference in functionality is that int_log2 also asserts that the result >>> is no greater than 31. >>> >>> This patch removes int_log2 in favour of exact_log2 and adds an assert on the result to make sure the return >>> value was as expected. >>> >>> Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. >>> >>> Is this ok? Or is there something I'm missing about int_log2? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kyrill >>> >>> 2016-05-24 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> >>> >>> * config/arm/arm.c (int_log2): Delete definition and prototype. >>> (shift_op): Use exact_log2 instead of int_log2. >>> (vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits): Likewise. >> >
Ping. Thanks, Kyrill On 16/06/16 10:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Ping. > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > On 09/06/16 12:04, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Ping. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00139.html >> >> Thanks, >> Kyrill >> >> On 02/06/16 11:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> I wanted to ping this patch, but checking the gcc-patches archive I see this wasn't >>> archived, though I have confirmed that the patch was sent out and distributed by >>> the mail server correctly. >>> >>> Anyway, resending... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kyrill >>> >>> On 24/05/16 14:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The int_log2 function in arm.c is not really useful since we already have a generic function for calculating >>>> the log2 of HOST_WIDE_INTs. The only difference in functionality is that int_log2 also asserts that the result >>>> is no greater than 31. >>>> >>>> This patch removes int_log2 in favour of exact_log2 and adds an assert on the result to make sure the return >>>> value was as expected. >>>> >>>> Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. >>>> >>>> Is this ok? Or is there something I'm missing about int_log2? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kyrill >>>> >>>> 2016-05-24 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * config/arm/arm.c (int_log2): Delete definition and prototype. >>>> (shift_op): Use exact_log2 instead of int_log2. >>>> (vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits): Likewise. >>> >> >
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index 6cc0feb6f87157171c889e998e52b4e5d8683c66..3fe6eab46f3c18ace6899b5be45ad646992f43e4 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -104,7 +104,6 @@ static void arm_print_operand_address (FILE *, machine_mode, rtx); static bool arm_print_operand_punct_valid_p (unsigned char code); static const char *fp_const_from_val (REAL_VALUE_TYPE *); static arm_cc get_arm_condition_code (rtx); -static HOST_WIDE_INT int_log2 (HOST_WIDE_INT); static const char *output_multi_immediate (rtx *, const char *, const char *, int, HOST_WIDE_INT); static const char *shift_op (rtx, HOST_WIDE_INT *); @@ -18920,7 +18919,8 @@ shift_op (rtx op, HOST_WIDE_INT *amountp) return NULL; } - *amountp = int_log2 (*amountp); + *amountp = exact_log2 (*amountp); + gcc_assert (IN_RANGE (*amountp, 0, 31)); return ARM_LSL_NAME; default: @@ -18952,22 +18952,6 @@ shift_op (rtx op, HOST_WIDE_INT *amountp) return mnem; } -/* Obtain the shift from the POWER of two. */ - -static HOST_WIDE_INT -int_log2 (HOST_WIDE_INT power) -{ - HOST_WIDE_INT shift = 0; - - while ((((HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 << shift) & power) == 0) - { - gcc_assert (shift <= 31); - shift++; - } - - return shift; -} - /* Output a .ascii pseudo-op, keeping track of lengths. This is because /bin/as is horribly restrictive. The judgement about whether or not each character is 'printable' (and can be output as @@ -27691,7 +27675,11 @@ vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits (rtx operand) HOST_WIDE_INT value = real_to_integer (&r0); value = value & 0xffffffff; if ((value != 0) && ( (value & (value - 1)) == 0)) - return int_log2 (value); + { + int ret = exact_log2 (value); + gcc_assert (IN_RANGE (ret, 0, 31)); + return ret; + } } } return 0;