On 04/29/2014 06:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> + if (d->one_operand_p != true)
> + return false;
This looks odd. Better as !d->one_operand_p.
> +
> + /* For an in order permutation with one operand like: {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}
> + PALIGNR is better than PSHUFB. Check for an order in permutation. */
FWIW, "in order permutation" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Better to describe this as a rotate.
> + in_order_length = 0;
> + in_order_length_max = 0;
> + if (d->one_operand_p == true)
You've just tested one_operand above.
> + for (i = 0; i < 2 * nelt; ++i)
Which means that 2*nelt is doing twice as much work as needed.
> + {
> + if ((d->perm[(i + 1) & (nelt - 1)] -
> + d->perm[i & (nelt - 1)]) != 1)
Surely we can avoid re-reading the comparison value...
next = (d->perm[0] + 1) & (nelt - 1);
for (i = 1; i < nelt; ++i)
{
if (d->perm[i] != next)
return false;
next = (next + 1) & (nelt - 1);
}
> + {
> + if (in_order_length > in_order_length_max)
> + in_order_length_max = in_order_length;
> + in_order_length = 0;
> + }
> + else
> + in_order_length++;
> + }
> +
> + /* If not an ordered permutation then try something else. */
> + if (in_order_length_max != nelt - 1)
> + return false;
I don't understand what this length and max stuff is trying to accomplish.
> +
> + min = d->perm[0];
> +
> + shift = GEN_INT (min * GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (d->vmode)));
> + shift1 = GEN_INT ((min - nelt / 2) *
> + GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (d->vmode)));
> +
> + if (GET_MODE_SIZE (d->vmode) != 32)
Positive tests are almost always clearer: == 16.
r~
