This is a patch that was approved a long time ago here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01833.html
but was never submitted.
2011-08-09 Artjoms Sinkarovs
/gcc
* c-typeck.c (scalar_to_vector): New function. Try scalar to
vector conversion.
(stv_conv): New enum for scalar_to_vector
Sorry, I didn't attach the patch itself.
Here we go, in the attachment.
Artem.
Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 177589)
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -6526,18 +6526,25 @@ In C it is possibl
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 Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> 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
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 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
> 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 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
>> +compare
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)
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 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
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 yo
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:
>>>
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:
>>&g
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 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 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 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
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:
>&g
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 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:
>>&g
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 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:
>&
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
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
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:
>>>
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:
>>&g
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
couple of days.
Thanks,
Artem Shinkarov.
Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 177758)
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -6553,6 +6553,32 @@ invoke undefined behavior at runtime. W
accesses
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This is a patch for the explicit vector shuffling we have discussed a
>> long time ago here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>>> The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
>>>> fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the way I
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> 1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
>> In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I think that I
>> expressed that in a pretty much short way wit
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> + /* Avoid C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPRs inside VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR. */
>> + tmp = c_fully_fold (v0, false, &maybe_const);
>> + v0 = save_expr (tmp);
>> + wrap &
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 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
>>
>>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> +The elements of the input vectors are numbered from left to right across
>> +one or both of the vectors. Each element in the mask specifies a number
>> +of element from the input vector(s). Consider the following example.
>
> It would b
Ian
I can try to put a description in the document. I am not sure that I
have rights to commit to the svn, but at least I can try to write the
text.
There are also pending patches for vector-comparison (almost
submitted) and vector shuffling (still under discussion), but I hope
to finish both of
were never
mentioned in any changes.
Thanks,
Artem.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov writes:
>
>> I can try to put a description in the document. I am not sure that I
>> have rights to commit to the svn, but at least I can t
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 Sinkarov
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 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
Hi, can anyone commit it please?
Richard?
Or may be Richard?
Thanks,
Artem.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Sorry for that, the vector comparison was submitted earlier. In the
> attachment there is a new version of the patch against the latest
>
my name from in the
ChangeLog from "Artem Shinkarov" to "Artjoms Sinkarovs". The last
version is the way I am spelled in the passport, and the name I use in
the ChangeLog.
Thanks,
Artem.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 05:14 AM
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Hi, Richard
>>
>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
&
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 10:42 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> You might have a look at the "Vector Shuffle" thread, where we've been
>>> trying to provide builtin-level access to this feature. We've not added
>>> an rtx-level code for this because so f
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 11:40 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Currently if vec_perm_ok returns false, we do not try to use a new
>> vshuffle routine. Would it make sense to implement that? The only
>> potential problem I
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Hi, Richard
>>
>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
&
Ping.
Richard, the patch in the attachment should be submitted asap. The
other problem could wait for a while.
Thanks,
Artem.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinka
Hi
Here is the patch tho fix bconstp-3.c failure in the bug 50607. The
failure was cause because the new parser routine did not consider
original_tree_code of the expression.
The patch is bootstrapped on x86-unknown-linux-gnu and is being tested.
Thanks,
Artem.
Index: c-parser.c
===
warning.
(lower_vec_shuffle): Adjust to produce the warning.
* gcc/common.opt: New warning Wvector-operation-expanded.
* gcc/doc/invoke.texi: Document the wawning.
Ok?
Thanks,
Artem Shinkarov.
P.S. It is hard to write a reasonable testcase for the patch, because
one needs to
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Here is the patch tho fix bconstp-3.c failure in the bug 50607. The
>> failure was cause because the new parser routine did not consider
>>
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Here is a patch to inform a programmer about the expanded vector operation.
>> Bootstrapped on x86-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>
>&g
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi
>> >>
&g
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> Joseph, is it possible to commit the patch together with the space fixes?
>
> You should not commit whitespace fixes to lines not otherwise modified by
> a patch, except
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph, is it possible to commit the patch together with the space fixes?
>>
>> You shou
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Successfully regtested on x86-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to the
>> mainline with the revision 179588.
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> 2011-10-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
>>&
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
>&g
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>> wrote:
>&g
11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>>
>> Committed with the revision 179807.
>>
>>
>
> This caused:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
>
> --
> H.J.
>
fix-performance-tests.diff
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>> This patch fixed PR50704.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite:
>>> * gcc.targ
Hi
I would like to share some plans about improving the situation with
vector alignment tracking. First of all, I would like to start with a
well-known bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50716.
There are several aspects of the problem:
1) We would like to avoid the quiet segmentati
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov writes:
>>
>> 1) Currently in C we cannot provide information that an array is
>> aligned to a certain number. The problem is hidden in the fact, that
>
> Have you considered doing it the other way
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>>> This patch fixed
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
>>
66 matches
Mail list logo
