On 20/10/15 17:28, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Marcus Shawcroft
<marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 October 2015 at 14:57, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote:
2015-10-19 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md
(*aarch64_fcvt<su_optab><GPF:mode><GPI:mode>2_mult): New pattern.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
(*aarch64_fcvt<su_optab><VDQF:mode><fcvt_target>2_mult): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_rtx_costs): Handle above patterns.
(aarch64_fpconst_pow_of_2): New function.
(aarch64_vec_fpconst_pow_of_2): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_fpconst_pow_of_2): Declare
prototype.
(aarch64_vec_fpconst_pow_of_2): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/predicates.md (aarch64_fp_pow2): New predicate.
(aarch64_fp_vec_pow2): Likewise.
2015-10-19 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
* gcc.target/aarch64/fmul_fcvt_1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/aarch64/fmul_fcvt_2.c: Likewise.
+ char buf[64];
+ sprintf (buf, "fcvtz<su>\\t%%0.<Vtype>, %%1.<Vtype>, #%d", fbits);
Prefer snprintf please
Should we also update our coding standards for this ? i.e. use the non
`n' versions of the string functions only if you have a very good
reason. Even more so in the run time support libraries !
My understanding is one should *really* use snprintf if any part of the
string comes from the user. So in this case it probably doesn't make a
difference. However, it's not hard to use the 'n' version and thinking
about the maximum length is probably a good practice to get into.
Kyrill
Maybe we can go to the extreme of poisoning sprintf too, but that's
probably an extreme...
regards
Ramana
+ }
+ [(set_attr "type" "neon_fp_to_int_<Vetype><q>")]
+)
+
+
Superflous blank line here ?
+ *cost += rtx_cost (XEXP (x, 0), VOIDmode,
+ (enum rtx_code) code, 0, speed);
My understanding is the unnecessary use of enum is now discouraged,
(rtx_code) is sufficient in this case.
+ int count = CONST_VECTOR_NUNITS (x);
+ int i;
+ for (i = 1; i < count; i++)
Push the int into the for initializer.
Push the rhs of the count assignment into the for condition and drop
the definition of count.
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "fcvtzs\tw\[0-9\], s\[0-9\]*.*#2" } } */
I'd prefer scan-assembler-times or do you have a particular reason to
avoid it in these tests?
Cheers
/Marcus
