On 8/26/24 10:39 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:39:36PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> - if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode)
>>> + if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode
>>> + || mode == PTImode)
>>
>> Maybe
On 8/26/24 10:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:48:19PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> I agree, there probably is code in the backend that currently handles TImode
>> that should probably be changed to handle both by using your new macro.
>
> That is what mode classes a
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:48:19PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> I was a little surprised we didn't have that macro already. Ok, consider
> it changed with your suggestion.
>
> I agree, there probably is code in the backend that currently handles TImode
> that should probably be changed to h
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:39:36PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > - if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode)
> > + if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode
> > + || mode == PTImode)
>
> Maybe we can introduce a macro to this file like
>
On 8/22/24 8:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/22/24 4:39 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> OK for trunk and all active release branches with/without these nits tweaked,
>> but please give others two days or so to comment, thanks!
>
> I'll make the suggested changes and push them to trunk when my new set o
On 8/22/24 4:39 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2024/8/21 21:14, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> - if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode)
>> + if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode
>> + || mode == PTImode)
>
> Maybe we can introduce a macro to t
Hi Peter,
on 2024/8/21 21:14, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Our power8 swap optimization pass has some special handling for optimizing
> swaps of TImode variables. The test case reported in bugzilla uses a call
> to __atomic_compare_exchange, which introduces a variable of PTImode and
> that does not g
Our power8 swap optimization pass has some special handling for optimizing
swaps of TImode variables. The test case reported in bugzilla uses a call
to __atomic_compare_exchange, which introduces a variable of PTImode and
that does not get the same treatment as TImode leading to wrong code
genera
