https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82847
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82847 > > --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> > --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4) > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82847 > > > > > > rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > > > > > What |Removed |Added > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot > > > gnu.org > > > > > > --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot > > > gnu.org> --- > > > Isn't the problem here that vect_perm_byte and vect_perm_short don't > > > return > > > true for x86_64, even though the patterns seem to be there in sse.md? > > > > vect_perm_byte is only available with SSEn+ > > > > The test only uses vect_perm_short though. > > Sure, fixing only vect_perm_short would be enough for this PR. I just > meant that the same problem seems to apply to vect_perm_byte too. We mostly use the "generic" vect_perm ... or maybe we used to do that.
