On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:05 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Kenneth Zadeck > <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >> we hit this limit trying to write the explicit semantics for a >> vec_interleave_evenv32qi. >> >> ;;(define_insn "vec_interleave_evenv32qi" >> ;; [(set (match_operand:V32QI 0 "register_operand" "=r") >> ;; (vec_select:V32QI >> ;; (vec_concat:V64QI >> ;; (match_operand:V32QI 1 "register_operand" "0") >> ;; (match_operand:V32QI 2 "register_operand" "r")) >> ;; (parallel [(const_int 0) (const_int 32) >> ;; (const_int 2) (const_int 34) >> ;; (const_int 4) (const_int 36) >> ;; (const_int 6) (const_int 38) >> ;; (const_int 8) (const_int 40) >> ;; (const_int 10) (const_int 42) >> ;; (const_int 12) (const_int 44) >> ;; (const_int 14) (const_int 46) >> ;; (const_int 16) (const_int 48) >> ;; (const_int 18) (const_int 50) >> ;; (const_int 20) (const_int 52) >> ;; (const_int 22) (const_int 54) >> ;; (const_int 24) (const_int 56) >> ;; (const_int 26) (const_int 58) >> ;; (const_int 28) (const_int 60) >> ;; (const_int 30) (const_int 62)])))] >> ;; "" >> ;; "rimihv\t%0,%2,8,15,8" >> ;; [(set_attr "type" "rimi")]) >> >> >> kenny >> >> On 03/31/2011 06:16 AM, Mike Stump wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:41 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:09 PM, H.J. Lu<hongjiu...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:02:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, we limit XVECEXP to 26 elements in machine description >>>>>> since we use letters 'a' to 'z' to encode them. I don't see any >>>>>> reason why we can't go beyond 'z'. This patch removes this >>>>>> restriction. >>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>> >>>>> That was wrong. The problem is in vector elements. This patch passes >>>>> bootstrap. Any comments? >>>> >>>> Do you really need it? >>> >>> I'm trying to recall if this is the limit Kenny and I hit.... If so, >>> annoying. Kenny could confirm if it was. gcc's general strategy of, no >>> fixed N gives gcc a certain flexibility that is very nice to have, on those >>> general grounds, I kinda liked this patch. >> > > Is my patch OK to install? >
Here is my patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02105.html OK for trunk? Thanks. -- H.J.
