Jakub Jelinek schrieb:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:32:37AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> The patch from
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg02060.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/txt00337.txt
>> works for me.
>>
>> If it's ok from maintainer I can apply it for
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:32:37AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> The patch from
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg02060.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/txt00337.txt
> works for me.
>
> If it's ok from maintainer I can apply it for you.
It is fine with a suitab
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>> Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
>>> with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
>>> stati
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
statically get c
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
>> with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
>> statically get correspondence of the
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
> with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
> statically get correspondence of the types, in a sense that sizeof
> (float) == sizeof (int) and
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> >> The target has
>> >>
>> >> 2 = sizeof (short)
>> >> 2 = sizeof (int)
>> >> 4 = sizeof (long int)
>> >> 8 = sizeof (long long int)
>> >>
>> >> Could you fix that? I.e. par
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >> The target has
> >>
> >> 2 = sizeof (short)
> >> 2 = sizeof (int)
> >> 4 = sizeof (long int)
> >> 8 = sizeof (long long int)
> >>
> >> Could you fix that? I.e. parametrize sizeof(int) out or skip the test by
> >> means of
> >>
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
>>> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
>>> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>>>
>>>
>>> ChangeLog
>>>
>>> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>>>
>>>gcc/
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
>> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
>> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>>
>>
>> ChangeLog
>>
>> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>>
>> gcc/
>> * fold-const.c (constant_bo
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>
>
> ChangeLog
>
> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>
>gcc/
>* fold-const.c (constant_boolean_node): Adjust the meaning
>of boolean for vector typ
On 29/09/11 12:27, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. M
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>>> wrote:
This looks like it has the same issue with ma
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> This looks like it has the same issue with maybe needing to use
>>> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in type comparisons as the
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> This looks like it has the same issue with maybe needing to use
>> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in type comparisons as the shuffle patch.
>
> I don't think so, we move qualifiers to the ve
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> This looks like it has the same issue with maybe needing to use
> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in type comparisons as the shuffle patch.
I don't think so, we move qualifiers to the vector type from the element type
in make_vector_type and the tests on
On 08/29/2011 04:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The definition in OpenCL makes zero sense to me. For byte operands
> it is custom-tailored after the SSE PMOVMSKB instruction, but there
> is no PMOVMSKW/PMOVMSKD instruction so you would need very slow bit
> shift operations before PMOVMSK. On the o
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> All the rest is adjusted in the new version of the patch you can find
>> in the attachment.
>>
>> ChangLog
>>
>>
>> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>>
>> gcc/
>> * expr.c (do_store_flag): Expand vector comparison by
>> build
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
Here is a new version of the patch which considers
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
>>> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>>>
>>>
>>> Cha
This looks like it has the same issue with maybe needing to use
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in type comparisons as the shuffle patch.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
>> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>>
>>
>> ChangeLog
>>
>> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>>
>> gcc/
>>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
> 2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
>
>
> ChangeLog
>
> 20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
>
> gcc/
> * fold-const.c (constant_boolean_node): Adjust the meaning
> o
Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
ChangeLog
20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
gcc/
* fold-const.c (constant_boolean_node): Adjust the meaning
of boolean for vector types: true = {-1,..}, false = {0,..}.
(fol
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
cannot embed the operations of a into VE
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>>> In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
>>> cannot embed the operations of a into VEC_COND_EXPR.
>>
>> Sure, but if the above is C source the fronten
On 08/18/2011 11:23 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yeah, well. That's really a question for language lawyers;) I agree
that it would be nice to have mask ? val0 : val1 behave "the same"
for scalars and vectors. The question is whether for vectors you
define it on the bit-level (which makes it eq
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here is a patch with vector comparison only.
> Comparison is expanded using VEC_COND_EXPR, conversions between the
> different types inside the VEC_COND_EXPR are happening in optabs.c.
I have split out the middle-end infrastructure
Hi
Here is a patch with vector comparison only.
Comparison is expanded using VEC_COND_EXPR, conversions between the
different types inside the VEC_COND_EXPR are happening in optabs.c.
The comparison generally works, however, the x86 backend does not
recognize vectors of all 1s of type float and d
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinka
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Gue
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shink
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
>>> we discussed.
>>>
>>> So I think it is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
>> we discussed.
>>
>> So I think it is a right time to do something about vcond patterns,
>> which would
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
> we discussed.
>
> So I think it is a right time to do something about vcond patterns,
> which would allow me to get rid of conversions that I need to put all
> over the
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
>> we discussed.
>>
>> So I think it is a right time to do something about vcond patterns,
>> which would a
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
> we discussed.
>
> So I think it is a right time to do something about vcond patterns,
> which would allow me to get rid of conversions that I need to put all
> over the
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
I'm confused.
There is a set of proble
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> I'm confused.
>>> There is a set of problems which are tightly connected and you address
>>> only one one of th
Sorry, not
rhs = gimplify_build3 (gsi, VEC_COND_EXPR, a, b, {-1}, {0}>
but rather
rhs = gimplify_build3 (gsi, VEC_COND_EXPR, build2 (GT_EXPR, type, a,
b), {-1}, {0}>
Artem.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Sh
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard G
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shi
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
I'll just send you my current version. I'll
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> I'll just send you my current version. I'll be a little bit more specific.
>>>
>>> The problem starts when you
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> I'll just send you my current version. I'll be a little bit more specific.
>>
>> The problem starts when you try to lower the following expression:
>>
>> x = a > b;
>> x1 = vco
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> I'll just send you my current version. I'll be a little bit more specific.
>
> The problem starts when you try to lower the following expression:
>
> x = a > b;
> x1 = vcond
> vcond
>
> Now, you go from the beginning to the end of the bl
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Artem Shinka
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guent
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>>> In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
>>> cannot embed the operations of a into VEC_COND_EXPR.
>>
>> Sure, but if the above is C source the fronten
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkar
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>>> In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
>>> cannot embed the operations of a into VEC_COND_EXPR.
>>
>> Sure, but if the above is C source the fronten
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
>> cannot embed the operations of a into VEC_COND_EXPR.
>
> Sure, but if the above is C source the frontend would generate
> res = a != 0 ? v0 : v1; initially. An opti
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guent
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkar
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guen
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shink
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
Richard
I formalized an approach a
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> I formalized an approach a little-bit, now it works without target
>>> hooks, but some polishin
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Richard
>>
>> I formalized an approach a little-bit, now it works without target
>> hooks, but some polishing is still required. I want you to comment on
>> the several import
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Richard
>
> I formalized an approach a little-bit, now it works without target
> hooks, but some polishing is still required. I want you to comment on
> the several important approaches that I use in the patch.
>
> So how does it work.
> 1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>>> Hm, ok ... let's hope we can sort-out the backend issues before this
>>> patch goes in so we can remove this converting stuff.
>>
>> Hm, I would hope that we could commit this patch even with this issue,
>> because my feeling is that t
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
>>> from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix8
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
>> from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
>>
>> I looked into it this problem for quite a
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
> from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
>
> I looked into it this problem for quite a while and found a solution.
> Now the question if it could be don
Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
I looked into it this problem for quite a while and found a solution.
Now the question if it could be done better.
First of all the problem:
If we represent any vector c
On 08/18/2011 02:23 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> >> The first one (inefficient) is vec0 > vec1 ? {-1,...} : {0,...}
>>> >> The second is vec0 > vec1. expand_vec_cond_expr is stupid, which is
>>> >> fine, but it means that we need to construct it carefully.
>> >
>> > This is still important.
> Ye
Richard, I am trying to make sure that when vcond has {-1} and {0} it
does not trigger masking. Currently I am doing this:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 177665)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> >> + /* Avoid C_MAYBE_CONST in VEC_COND_EXPR. */
> >> + sc = c_fully_fold (ifexp, false, &maybe_const);
> >> + sc = save_expr (sc);
> >> + if (!maybe_const)
> >> + ifexp = c_wrap_maybe_const (sc, true);
> >> + else
> >> +
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> +For the convenience condition in the vector conditional can be just a
>> +vector of signed integer type. In that case this vector is implicitly
>> +compared with vectors of zeroes. Consider
> Yes. I think the backends need to handle optimizing this case,
> esp. considering targets that do not have instructions to produce
> a {-1,...}/{0,...} bitmask from a comparison but produce a vector
> of condition codes. With using vec0 > vec1 ? {-1...} : {0,...} for
> mask = vec0 > vec1; we av
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
Hi
Several comments before the new ve
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> +For the convenience condition in the vector conditional can be just a
> +vector of signed integer type. In that case this vector is implicitly
> +compared with vectors of zeroes. Consider an example:
Where is this bit tested in the testcases added?
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Several comments before the new version of the patch.
>> 1) x != x
>> I am happy to adjust constant_boolean_node, but look at the code
>> around line 9074 in fold-const
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Several comments before the new version of the patch.
> 1) x != x
> I am happy to adjust constant_boolean_node, but look at the code
> around line 9074 in fold-const.c, you will see that x x
> elimination, even with adjusted constan
Hi
Several comments before the new version of the patch.
1) x != x
I am happy to adjust constant_boolean_node, but look at the code
around line 9074 in fold-const.c, you will see that x x
elimination, even with adjusted constant_boolean_node, will look about
the same as my code. Because I need to
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi, here is a new version of the patch with the adjustments.
>
> Two important comments.
> 1) At the moment when I expand expression mask ? vec0 : vec1, I
> replace mask with (mask == {-1,-1,..}). The first reason is that
> expand_vec_con
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c (revision 177665)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c (w
> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Here is a completed version of the vector comparison patch we
>>>> discussed a long time ago here:
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01184.html
>>>>
>>>> The patch implements vector comparison a
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Here is a completed version of the vector compariso
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Here is a completed version of the vector comparison patch we
>> discussed a long time ago here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here is a completed version of the vector comparison patch we
> discussed a long time ago here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01184.html
>
> The patch implements vector comparison according to
85 matches
Mail list logo
