https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #19 from Arjan van de Ven ---
> GCC is not just about x86.
I know that, which is why I know my patch is not correct, but more of a precise
bug report... clearly this need to be done in a way that does not hurt other
architectures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arjan van de Ven from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > Read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00693.html also. There
> > is much more to that thread t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #17 from Arjan van de Ven ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> Read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00693.html also. There
> is much more to that thread than just in August IIRC. Some in September and
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #16 from Arjan van de Ven ---
A comparable (but optimized to generate smaller asm) testcase is this:
#include
void RELU(float *buffer, int size)
{
float *ptr = (float *) __builtin_assume_aligned(buffer, 64);
int i;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00693.html also. There is
much more to that thread than just in August IIRC. Some in September and in
October too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
So MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR is not safe due to NaNs. There was some work on adding an
IEEE MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR which is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #13 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40422
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40422&action=edit
generated ASM with vectorization (with patch / no fast-math)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #12 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40421&action=edit
generated ASM without vectorization (no patch / no fast-math)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #11 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40420
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40420&action=edit
generated ASM with vectorization and fast-math (no patch)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #10 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40419
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40419&action=edit
generated ASM with vectorization (no patch / no fast-math)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #9 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40418&action=edit
Makefile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #8 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40417
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40417&action=edit
refined test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #7 from Arjan van de Ven ---
Created attachment 40416
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40416&action=edit
prototype patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
Arjan van de Ven changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|6.1.1 |6.3.0
--- Comment #6 from Arjan van d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #5 from Arjan van de Ven ---
I don't think that's completely true; it does use maxss (the non-vector one)
for this code, so at least something thinks its safe to use max, just likely
that something is after the vector phase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
16 matches
Mail list logo
