On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 09:50 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:14PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > The method used in this patch is to perform a byte-reversal of the
> > result of the lvsl/lvsr. This is accomplished by loading the vector
> > char constant {0,1,...,15}, which will appear in the register from left
> > to right as {15,...,1,0}. A vperm instruction (which uses BE element
> > ordering) is applied to the result of the lvsl/lvsr using the loaded
> > constant as the permute control vector.
>
> It would be nice if you could arrange the generated sequence such that
> for the common case where the vec_lvsl feeds a vperm it is results in
> just lvsr;vnot machine instructions. Not so easy to do though :-(
Yes -- as you note, that only works when feeding a vperm, which is what
we expect but generally a lot of work to prove. Again, this is
deprecated usage so it seems not worth spending the effort on this...
>
> Some minor comments...
>
> > -(define_insn "altivec_lvsl"
> > +(define_expand "altivec_lvsl"
> > + [(use (match_operand:V16QI 0 "register_operand" ""))
> > + (use (match_operand:V16QI 1 "memory_operand" "Z"))]
>
> A define_expand should not have constraints.
Thanks for catching this -- that one slipped through (pasto).
>
> > + "TARGET_ALTIVEC"
> > + "
>
> No need for the quotes.
Ok.
>
> > +{
> > + if (VECTOR_ELT_ORDER_BIG)
> > + emit_insn (gen_altivec_lvsl_direct (operands[0], operands[1]));
> > + else
> > + {
> > + int i;
> > + rtx mask, perm[16], constv, vperm;
> > + mask = gen_reg_rtx (V16QImode);
> > + emit_insn (gen_altivec_lvsl_direct (mask, operands[1]));
> > + for (i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
>
> i++ is the common style.
Now that we're being compiled as C++, ++i is the common style there --
is there guidance about this for gcc style these days?
Thanks,
Bill
>
>
> Segher
>
