On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> 2014-07-04 Evgeny Stupachenko
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): Disable for AVX.
Please mention PR target/61618 above.
>>> The following patch should fix 61618
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
2014-07-04 Evgeny Stupachenko
* config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): Disable for AVX.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>> The following patch should fix 61618
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> The following patch should fix 61618
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index 8046c67..2cffcef 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/
The following patch should fix 61618
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 8046c67..2cffcef 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -43211,12 +43211,10 @@ expand_vec_perm_pblendv (struct exp
The stability of the changes are covered in gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
Test on "pblend" scan I'll add with the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00795.html
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 06/09/20
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/09/2014 12:10 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
>> Nice catch.
>> Patch with corresponding changes:
>
> Looks ok with an appropriate changelog.
>
It will be nice to include testcases to cover those changes.
--
H.J.
On 06/09/2014 12:10 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Nice catch.
> Patch with corresponding changes:
Looks ok with an appropriate changelog.
r~
Nice catch.
Patch with corresponding changes:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 8827256..0b80354 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -43185,6 +43185,80 @@ expand_vec_perm_palignr (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
return ok;
}
+/* A
On 06/09/2014 03:13 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> + /* First we apply one operand permutation to the part where
> + elements stay not in their respective lanes. */
> + dcopy = *d;
> + if (which == 2)
> +dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op1;
> + else
> +dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op0;
>
Right now we need to cover permutations coming from 3 loads/stores
group. My case covers them. I agree that another order of pblend and
pshufb covers additional cases. Good point. We can cover this in a
separate patch.
Asserts are ok if we exclude AVX2 in ISA checks.
Is the following patch ok?
d
On 06/05/2014 08:29 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> + /* Figure out where permutation elements stay not in their
> + respective lanes. */
> + for (i = 0, which = 0; i < nelt; ++i)
> +{
> + unsigned e = d->perm[i];
> + if (e != i)
> + which |= (e < nelt ? 1 : 2);
> +}
Hi,
The patch passed bootstrap and make check. No new fails.
The patch gives ~10% to test in pr52252 and potentially in pr61403.
Is it ok?
Thanks,
Evgeny
ChangeLog:
2014-06-05 Evgeny Stupachenko
* config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): New.
Permutation expand using
12 matches
Mail list logo
