> This is vect_perm. Why are you inventing a new one?
As far as I understand, vect_perm is true if target supports at least
some vector-permutation, while vect_any_perm is intended to be true if
arbitrary permutation is supported (like in avx). It was introduced
because vectorization began to occur on a previously unvectorizable
loop in slp-perm-9.c when -mavx2 is specified. I think that's because
broader range of permutations is available in this case, and that's
why I introduced this checker.
Michael
On 15 December 2011 20:11, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> +# Return 1 if the target supports instructions for arbitrary permutations.
>> +#
>> +# This won't change for different subtargets so cache the result.
>> +
>> +proc check_effective_target_vect_any_perm { } {
>
> This is vect_perm. Why are you inventing a new one?
>
>
> r~
