Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

2005-09-02 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello Paolo! > Heh, I'm quite at a loss regarding PR22480. I don't know exactly what > to do because i386 does not support, e.g. { 2, 4 } << { 1, 2 } (which > would give {4, 16} as a result). There is indeed a back-end problem, > because ashl3 is supposed to have two operands of the same mode, >

Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

2005-09-01 Thread Richard Henderson
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:24:26AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 1) in the vectorizer, check in the optab if the predicate for each > operand of an insn accepts a register. If not, refuse vectorization if > the corresponding gimple operand is not constant. That sounds plausible, yes. > By the

Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

2005-09-01 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Uros Bizjak wrote (privately, but I forwarded to GCC in order to get help): Hello Paolo! I was looking at PR middle-end/22480 if there is something to fix at the i386 backend. However, there is no documentation at all regarding vec_shl_ and vec_shr_ builtins. Heh, I'm quite at a loss regar