On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 12:21 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Will Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Add support for gimple folding of splat_u{8,16,32}.
> > Testcase coverage is primarily handled by existing tests
> > testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splat_*.c
> >
> >
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:36:58AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> Add support for gimple folding of splat_u{8,16,32}.
> Testcase coverage is primarily handled by existing tests
> testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splat_*.c
>
> One new test added to verify we continue to receive
> an 'in
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:21:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > +if ( TREE_CODE (arg0) != INTEGER_CST)
>
> Also watch formatting, the space after ( doesn't belong there.
>
>> > + return false;
>>
>> Is there a reason to
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:21:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > +if ( TREE_CODE (arg0) != INTEGER_CST)
Also watch formatting, the space after ( doesn't belong there.
> > + return false;
>
> Is there a reason to not do this for non-constants? (even not for
> float constants?
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Will Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
> Add support for gimple folding of splat_u{8,16,32}.
> Testcase coverage is primarily handled by existing tests
> testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splat_*.c
>
> One new test added to verify we continue to receive
> an 'invalid argumen
Hi,
Add support for gimple folding of splat_u{8,16,32}.
Testcase coverage is primarily handled by existing tests
testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splat_*.c
One new test added to verify we continue to receive
an 'invalid argument, must be a 5-bit immediate' error
when we try to splat a non
