On Jun 25, 2024, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>> Richard (Sandiford), do you happen to recall why the IRC conversation >> mentioned in the PR trail decided to drop it entirely, even for signed >> types? > In the PR, the original shift was 32768 >> x (x >= 16) on ints, which the > vectoriser was narrowing to 32768 >> x' on shorts. The original shift is > well-defined for both signed and unsigned shifts, and no valid x' exists > for that case. It sounds like shifts on shorts proper, that would have benefitted from the optimization, was not covered and thus there may be room for reconsidering, eh? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
