On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 11:51, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 22:26, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 22:26, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> >> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
>> >> > wro
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 22:26, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> >> > Hi Richard,
>> >> > For the following (contrived) test:
>> >
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 19:59, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > For the following (contrived) test:
> >> >
> >> > void foo(int32x4_t v)
> >> > {
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> > For the following (contrived) test:
>> >
>> > void foo(int32x4_t v)
>> > {
>> > v[3] = 0;
>> > return v;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -O2 code-gen:
>> > foo:
>>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 18:29, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > For the following (contrived) test:
> >
> > void foo(int32x4_t v)
> > {
> > v[3] = 0;
> > return v;
> > }
> >
> > -O2 code-gen:
> > foo:
> > fmovs1, wzr
> > ins v
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi Richard,
> For the following (contrived) test:
>
> void foo(int32x4_t v)
> {
> v[3] = 0;
> return v;
> }
>
> -O2 code-gen:
> foo:
> fmovs1, wzr
> ins v0.s[3], v1.s[0]
> ret
>
> I suppose we can instead emit the following code-gen
Hi Richard,
For the following (contrived) test:
void foo(int32x4_t v)
{
v[3] = 0;
return v;
}
-O2 code-gen:
foo:
fmovs1, wzr
ins v0.s[3], v1.s[0]
ret
I suppose we can instead emit the following code-gen ?
foo:
ins v0.s[3], wzr
ret
combine produces: