On 06/04/2014 02:23 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Thanks. Moving pattern down helps. Now make check for the following
> patch passed:
Excellent. This version looks good.
r~
Thanks. Moving pattern down helps. Now make check for the following
patch passed:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
index 2ef1384..8266f3e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
@@ -1417,6 +1417,22 @@
return true;
On 06/04/2014 10:06 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Is it ok to use the following pattern?
>
> patch passed bootstrap and make check, but one test failed:
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-rebuild.c
> It failed on /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tv?permilpd\[ \t\]" 1 } }
> */
> which is
Is it ok to use the following pattern?
patch passed bootstrap and make check, but one test failed:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-rebuild.c
It failed on /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tv?permilpd\[ \t\]" 1 } } */
which is now palignr. However, both palignr and permilpd costs 1 tick
and
On 05/05/2014 09:54 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> @@ -42943,6 +42944,10 @@ expand_vec_perm_1 (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
>if (expand_vec_perm_vpermil (d))
> return true;
>
> + /* Try palignr on one operand. */
> + if (d->one_operand_p && expand_vec_perm_palignr (d))
> +return t
Ping.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Assuming first part of the patch is committed. Is the following patch
> ok? It passes bootstrap and make check.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index 91f6f21..475448e 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i38
Assuming first part of the patch is committed. Is the following patch
ok? It passes bootstrap and make check.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 91f6f21..475448e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -42808,6 +42808,7 @@ expand_vec_perm
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 10:13 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
>> + /* For a rotaion permutation with one operand like: {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}
>> + PALIGNR is better than PSHUFB. Check for a rotation in permutation.
>> */
>> + for (i = 0; i < nelt
On 04/29/2014 10:13 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> + /* For a rotaion permutation with one operand like: {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}
> + PALIGNR is better than PSHUFB. Check for a rotation in permutation. */
> + for (i = 0; i < nelt; ++i)
> +if d->perm[(i + 1) & (nelt - 1)] - d->perm[i])) &
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:58:39AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
> > The patch adds use of palignr instruction, when we have one operand
> > permutation like:
> > {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}:
> >
> > Treating this as {5 6 7 8 9 a b c} on 2 operands, an
Thanks. The path is fixed according to your comments:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 002d295..aa6372a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -42807,6 +42807,79 @@ expand_vec_perm_pshufb (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
return true;
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The patch adds use of palignr instruction, when we have one operand
>> permutation like:
>> {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}:
>>
>> Treating this as {5 6 7 8 9 a b c} on 2 operands, and t
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 pe
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch adds use of palignr instruction, when we have one operand
> permutation like:
> {5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}:
>
> Treating this as {5 6 7 8 9 a b c} on 2 operands, and therefore palignr on 5.
>
> Bootstrap and make check passed.
>
Hi,
The patch adds use of palignr instruction, when we have one operand
permutation like:
{5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4}:
Treating this as {5 6 7 8 9 a b c} on 2 operands, and therefore palignr on 5.
Bootstrap and make check passed.
Is it ok?
Evgeny
2014-04-29 Evgeny Stupachenko
* config/i386/
15 matches
Mail list logo
