On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 14:07, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > > On Wed, 26 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > The attached patch removes calls to builtins in vmul_n* (a, b) with __a * > > __b. > > I am not familiar with neon, but are __a and __b unsigned here? Otherwise, > is vmul_n already undefined in case of overflow? Hi Marc, Sorry for late reply, for vmul_n_s*, I think they are signed (int<width>x<width>_t). I am not sure how should the intrinsic behave in case of signed overflow, but I am assuming it's OK since vmul_s* intrinsics leave it undefined too. Kyrill, is it OK to leave vmul_s* and vmul_n_s* undefined in case of overflow ?
Thanks, Prathamesh > > -- > Marc Glisse
