https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52572
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-13
17:57:58 UTC ---
Or for this variant:
__m256d f(__m256d *y){
__m256d x=*y;
x[0]=0; // or x[3]
return x;
}
it looks like vmaskmovpd could replace:
vmovapd(%rdi), %ymm0
vmovapd%xmm0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52572
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-13
08:16:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Have you actually tried that?
Ah, no, sorry, I only have occasional access to such a machine to benchmark the
code. From a -Os perspective it is still shorter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52572
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
