On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 16:01, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 15:22, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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). > > > Oops, I meant int<width>x<nelems>_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 ? > > The attached version fixes one fallout I missed earlier. > > Is this OK to commit ? > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572037.html ping * 2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572037.html
Thanks, Prathamesh > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > > > > Thanks, > > Prathamesh > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Prathamesh > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Marc Glisse
