--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-05 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 31478
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 5 22:16:37 2007
New Revision: 123527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123527
Log:
2007-04-05 Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
H.J. Lu <[
--- Comment #11 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 20:06 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> >
> > > > Please also change operands 1 and 2 of sdot_prodv8hi expander to
> > > > register_operand to avoid further suprises.
> > > >
> >
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 20:05 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> > > Please also change operands 1 and 2 of sdot_prodv8hi expander to
> > > register_operand to avoid further suprises.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure if there is an issu
--- Comment #9 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-04-05 19:50 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Please also change operands 1 and 2 of sdot_prodv8hi expander to
> > register_operand to avoid further suprises.
> >
>
> I am not sure if there is an issue since op0 of sse2_pmaddwd must be
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 17:54 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
>
> > There is indeed a pattern without this check - sse2_pmaddwd.
> > Due to %, it is commutative, so check for PLUS of V8HI mode would be OK.
>
> Please also change opera
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 16:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
>
> > So anothe word is those patterns are used by ix86_expand_binop_builtin()
> > and won't be generated automatically. Will be "sse2_umulv2siv2di3"
> > generated automatic
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-04-05 16:48 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So anothe word is those patterns are used by ix86_expand_binop_builtin()
> and won't be generated automatically. Will be "sse2_umulv2siv2di3"
> generated automatically? If yes, what makes it dif
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 15:12 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > There is no corresponding define_expand for this pattern. Many define_insn
> > patterns without define_expand don't call ix86_binary_operator_ok. Will that
> > be a problem?
>
> Those are sse buil
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-04-05 09:13 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> There is indeed a pattern without this check - sse2_pmaddwd.
> Due to %, it is commutative, so check for PLUS of V8HI mode would be OK.
Please also change operands 1 and 2 of sdot_prodv8hi expa
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-04-05 08:48 ---
> There is no corresponding define_expand for this pattern. Many define_insn
> patterns without define_expand don't call ix86_binary_operator_ok. Will that
> be a problem?
Those are sse builtins and are expanded via ix86_
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-05 07:35 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
>
> > 1. Is ix86_binary_operator_ok needed here?
>
> Yes, it prevents expander and combiner to create two mem operands (please note
> that reload can also resolve this case
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-04-05 07:15 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> 1. Is ix86_binary_operator_ok needed here?
Yes, it prevents expander and combiner to create two mem operands (please note
that reload can also resolve this case by itself, but some CSE opportun
12 matches
Mail list logo
