On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 20
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Was I on the right track configuring with
--target=arm-non
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>
> Was I on the right track configuring with
> --target=arm-none-linux-gnueab
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Was I on the right track configuring with
--target=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9
--with-fpu=neon-fp16
then compiling without any special opt
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> >> Was I on the right track configuring with
> >> --target=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9
> >> --with-fpu=neon-fp16
> >> then compiling without any special option?
> >
> > Maybe you
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Was I on the right track configuring with
--target=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9
--with-fpu=neon-fp16
then compiling without any special option?
Maybe you also need --with-float=hard, I don't remember if it's
implied by the 'hf' target
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 13:42, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 11:06, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>
> > 2020-08-05 Marc Glisse
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/95906
> >>>
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 11:06, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
2020-08-05 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/95906
PR target/70314
* match.pd ((c ? a : b) op d, (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e),
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 11:06, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> >>> 2020-08-05 Marc Glisse
> >>>
> >>> PR tree-optimization/95906
> >>> PR target/70314
> >>> * match.pd ((c ? a : b) op d, (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e),
> >>> (v ? w
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:17 AM Christophe Lyon
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:24, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
New version that passed bootstrap+regtest during the night.
When v
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:17 AM Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:24, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > New version that passed bootstrap+regtest during the night.
> > >
> > > When vector comp
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Christophe Lyon wrote:
2020-08-05 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/95906
PR target/70314
* match.pd ((c ? a : b) op d, (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e),
(v ? w : 0) ? a : b, c1 ? c2 ? a : b : b): New transformations.
(op (c ? a : b)): Upd
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:24, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > New version that passed bootstrap+regtest during the night.
> >
> > When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
> > of
> > optimiz
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> New version that passed bootstrap+regtest during the night.
>
> When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number of
> optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent that).
> This patch tries to unwr
New version that passed bootstrap+regtest during the night.
When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number of
optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent that).
This patch tries to unwrap vec_cond_expr a bit so some optimizations can
still hap
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
+/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
+ (simplify
+ (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
+/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
+ (simplify
+ (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @0 @3 @4))
+ (with
+ {
+ tree rhs1
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Marc Glisse writes:
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Marc Glisse writes:
> >>> +/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
> >>> + (simplify
> >>> + (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @
Marc Glisse writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Marc Glisse writes:
>>> +/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
>>> + (simplify
>>> + (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @0 @3 @4))
>>> + (with
>>> + {
>>> + tree rhs1, rhs2 = NULL;
>>> +
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:35 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
of optimiz
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:47 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:35 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When vector comparisons were forced
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
+/* (v ? w : 0) ? a : b is just (v & w) ? a : b */
+(simplify
+ (vec_cond (vec_cond:s @0 @3 integer_zerop) @1 @2)
+ (vec_cond (bit_and @0 @3) @1 @2))
Does something check automatically that @0 and @3 have compatible types?
@0 should always have a v
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:35 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
> > > of optimizations (my fault for
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > Marc Glisse writes:
> >> +/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
> >> + (simplify
> >> + (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @0 @3 @4))
> >> + (with
> >> + {
>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:35 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
> > of optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent
> > that). This patch tries to
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
+/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
+ (simplify
+ (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @0 @3 @4))
+ (with
+ {
+ tree rhs1, rhs2 = NULL;
+ rhs1 = fold_binary (op, type, @1, @3);
+ if (
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
> of optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent
> that). This patch tries to unwrap vec_cond_expr a bit so some
> optimizations can still happen
Marc Glisse writes:
> +/* (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e) --> c ? (a op d) : (b op e) */
> + (simplify
> + (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) (vec_cond:s @0 @3 @4))
> + (with
> + {
> + tree rhs1, rhs2 = NULL;
> + rhs1 = fold_binary (op, type, @1, @3);
> + if (rhs1 && is_gimple_val (rhs1))
> +
When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
of optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent
that). This patch tries to unwrap vec_cond_expr a bit so some
optimizations can still happen.
I wasn't planning to add all those transformations toge
29 matches
Mail list logo
