Hello,
> This patch is still far too large.
>
> I think you should split it up based on every single mode iterator that
> you need to add or change.
Here's 14th subpatch. It introduces VI48F_256_512 iterator.
Is it Ok?
Testing:
1. Bootstrap pass.
2. make check shows no regressions.
3. Spec 2000 & 2006 build show no regressions both with and without -mavx512f
option.
4. Spec 2000 & 2006 run shows no stability regressions without -mavx512f
option.
--
Thanks, K
PS. If it is Ok - I am going to strip out ChangeLog lines from big patch.
---
gcc/config/i386/sse.md | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index 40030cf..bfaa3a1 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
@@ -367,6 +367,10 @@
(define_mode_iterator VI8F_256 [V4DI V4DF])
(define_mode_iterator VI8F_256_512
[V4DI V4DF (V8DI "TARGET_AVX512F") (V8DF "TARGET_AVX512F")])
+(define_mode_iterator VI48F_256_512
+ [V8SI V8SF
+ (V16SI "TARGET_AVX512F") (V16SF "TARGET_AVX512F")
+ (V8DI "TARGET_AVX512F") (V8DF "TARGET_AVX512F")])
;; Mapping from float mode to required SSE level
(define_mode_attr sse
@@ -10830,17 +10834,17 @@
(set_attr "prefix" "vex")
(set_attr "mode" "<sseinsnmode>")])
-(define_insn "avx2_permvar<mode>"
- [(set (match_operand:VI4F_256 0 "register_operand" "=v")
- (unspec:VI4F_256
- [(match_operand:VI4F_256 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "vm")
- (match_operand:V8SI 2 "register_operand" "v")]
+(define_insn "<avx2_avx512f>_permvar<mode>"
+ [(set (match_operand:VI48F_256_512 0 "register_operand" "=v")
+ (unspec:VI48F_256_512
+ [(match_operand:VI48F_256_512 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "vm")
+ (match_operand:<sseintvecmode> 2 "register_operand" "v")]
UNSPEC_VPERMVAR))]
"TARGET_AVX2"
"vperm<ssemodesuffix>\t{%1, %2, %0|%0, %2, %1}"
[(set_attr "type" "sselog")
(set_attr "prefix" "vex")
- (set_attr "mode" "OI")])
+ (set_attr "mode" "<sseinsnmode>")])
(define_expand "<avx2_avx512f>_perm<mode>"
[(match_operand:VI8F_256_512 0 "register_operand")
--
1.7.11.7
