On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
> we hit this limit trying to write the explicit semantics for a
> vec_interleave_evenv32qi.
>
> ;;(define_insn "vec_interleave_evenv32qi"
> ;;  [(set (match_operand:V32QI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> ;;    (vec_select:V32QI
> ;;      (vec_concat:V64QI
> ;;        (match_operand:V32QI 1 "register_operand" "0")
> ;;        (match_operand:V32QI 2 "register_operand" "r"))
> ;;      (parallel [(const_int  0) (const_int 32)
> ;;             (const_int  2) (const_int 34)
> ;;             (const_int  4) (const_int 36)
> ;;             (const_int  6) (const_int 38)
> ;;             (const_int  8) (const_int 40)
> ;;             (const_int 10) (const_int 42)
> ;;             (const_int 12) (const_int 44)
> ;;             (const_int 14) (const_int 46)
> ;;             (const_int 16) (const_int 48)
> ;;             (const_int 18) (const_int 50)
> ;;             (const_int 20) (const_int 52)
> ;;             (const_int 22) (const_int 54)
> ;;             (const_int 24) (const_int 56)
> ;;             (const_int 26) (const_int 58)
> ;;             (const_int 28) (const_int 60)
> ;;             (const_int 30) (const_int 62)])))]
> ;;  ""
> ;;  "rimihv\t%0,%2,8,15,8"
> ;;  [(set_attr "type" "rimi")])
>
>
> kenny
>
> On 03/31/2011 06:16 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:41 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:09 PM, H.J. Lu<hongjiu...@intel.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:02:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, we limit XVECEXP to 26 elements in machine description
>>>>> since we use letters 'a' to 'z' to encode them.  I don't see any
>>>>> reason why we can't go beyond 'z'.  This patch removes this
>>>>> restriction.
>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>
>>>> That was wrong.  The problem is in vector elements.  This patch passes
>>>> bootstrap.  Any comments?
>>>
>>> Do you really need it?
>>
>> I'm trying to recall if this is the limit Kenny and I hit....  If so,
>> annoying.  Kenny could confirm if it was.  gcc's general strategy of, no
>> fixed N gives gcc a certain flexibility that is very nice to have, on those
>> general grounds, I kinda liked this patch.
>

Is my patch OK to install?

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Reply via email to