Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> writes: > On 12/22/2011 12:05 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Probably one of those where you had to stop following the rathole, >> but could this be generalised to handle pairs in which perm[1] >> == perm[0] + 8? Something like: >> >>> + if (!(TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && TARGET_LOONGSON_VECTORS)) >>> + return false; >>> + /* Note that we've already matched V2SI via punpck and V4HI via pshufh. >>> */ >>> + if (d->vmode != V8QImode) >>> + return false; >>> + if (d->perm[1] != (d->one_vector_p ? : d->perm[0] : d->perm[0] + 8)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + for (i = 2; i < 8; ++i) >>> + if (d->perm[i] != d->perm[i & 1]) >>> + return false; >> >> then use both d->op0 and d->op1 in the pack? > > Hum. I suppose. But that's starting to look more like the i386 > expand_vec_perm_interleave2 + valid_perm_using_mode_p, or something. > > I'd rather leave this patch alone and do a follow-up if you want.
Sure, and no need for the follow-up. I was just curious. Richard
