On 1 February 2012 23:08, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 1 February 2012 19:33, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org> wrote on 01.02.2012 >> 16:28:04: >> >>> This patch should be queued for 4.8 .Sounds sensible to me. >> >> OK, thanks for the review! >> >>> > (As an aside, it might likewise be helpful to update the vec_set >> patterns >>> > to allow for memory operands, implemented via vld1.) >>> >>> Agreed. >> >> The attached patch adds support for vld1 in vec_set as well. >> (See attached file: diff-gcc-arm-vecsetextractmem) >> >> As a side note, I noticed that the vmov instructions output via >> vec_set and vec_extract use %? to support conditions in ARM mode; >> most of the rest of neon.md doesn't use %?, in particular, the >> patterns where I copied vst1/vld1 from didn't ... > > Thanks for following up with that - yes you make a useful small point > here. Neon doesn't support conditionals so you are right the %? is > superfluous there. In theory you can put the neon instructions in IT > blocks but that is deprecated by the architecture and is in general > not recommended. In fact on certain implementations while these > instructions will be supported "architecturally" performance will be > terrible. However because the pattern has a non- "none" neon_type > attribute and is not marked predicable, conditional execution will > never pick this up.
I realize I was wrong in this case - the original pattern was marked predicable. I want to go back and think about this one. Ramana _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
