On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 21:02, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 17:49, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote
> >> > pattern
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 17:49, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> > Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote pattern
>> > similar to vec_duplicate_reg, which seems to work for the svld1rq
>> > te
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 17:49, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote pattern
> > similar to vec_duplicate_reg, which seems to work for the svld1rq
> > tests.
> > Does it look OK ?
> >
> > Sorr
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi Richard,
> Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote pattern
> similar to vec_duplicate_reg, which seems to work for the svld1rq tests.
> Does it look OK ?
>
> Sorry, I didn't fully understand your suggestion on integrating with
> vec_dupli
Hi Richard,
Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote pattern
similar to vec_duplicate_reg, which seems to work for the svld1rq tests.
Does it look OK ?
Sorry, I didn't fully understand your suggestion on integrating with
vec_duplicate_reg
pattern. For vec_duplicate_reg, t
