On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 18:15 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:16 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 06:50 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > How about this? If it looks OK, I will post the whole patch set.
> > It's better. I'm guessing the two cases that were previously handled with
> > vextract/vbroadcast aren't supposed to happen? They're caught here IIUC:
> >
> > > + /* NB: To move xmm16-xmm31/ymm16-ymm31 registers without AVX512VL,
> > > + we can only use zmm register move without memory operand. */
> > > + if (evex_reg_p
> > > + && !TARGET_AVX512VL
> > > + && GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) < 64)
> > > + {
> > > + if (memory_operand (operands[0], mode)
> > > + || memory_operand (operands[1], mode))
> > > + gcc_unreachable ();
> > >
> >
> > If they truly can't happen, that's fine. My worry is I don't see changes to
> > the operand predicates or constraints which would avoid this case. Is it
> > prevented by the mode iterator on the operands? Again, just want to make
> > sure
> > I understand why the vextract/vbroadcast stuff isn't in the new code.
>
> There are no GCC testcases to show that they are actually ever used. That is
> why I removed them and added gcc_unreachable ().
Understood.
>
> 4 patches don't require changes in ix86_output_ssemov/ix86_get_ssemov:
>
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commit/426f2464abb80b97b8533f9efa15bbe72e6aa888
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commit/ec5b40d77f7a4424935275f1a7ccedbce83b6f54
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commit/92fdd98234984f86b66fb5403dd828661cd7999f
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commit/f8fa5e571caf6740b36d042d631b4ace11683cd7
>
> I can combine them into a single patch.
That sounds reasonable -- it should be trivial to review. Then we can work
through the patches that require changes to ix86_output_ssemov.
Thanks for your patience. I'm juggling a fair amount of stuff right now.
jeff
