(Pinging since I realised that this is required for my later Low Overhead Loop
patch series to work)
Ok for trunk with the updated changelog that Christophe mentioned?
Thanks,
Stamatis/Stam Markianos-Wright
From: Stam Markianos-Wright
Sent: Tuesday, August 1,
Following Andrea's overhaul of the MVE testsuite, these tests are now
reduntant, as equivalent checks have been added to the each intrinsic's
.c test.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_fp_vaddq_n.c: Removed.
* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_vaddq_m.c:
These newly updated tests were rewritten by Andrea. Some of them
needed further manual fixing as follows:
* The #shift immediate value not in the check-function-bodies as expected
* The ACLE was specifying sub-optimal code: lsr+and instead of ubfx. In
this case the test rewritten from the ACLE h
From: Andrea Corallo
Hi all,
this patch fixes the vstrwq* MVE instrinsics failing to emit the
correct sequence of instruction due to a missing predicate. Also the
immediate range is fixed to be multiples of 2 up between [-252, 252].
Best Regards
Andrea
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/c
Hi all,
This is a simple testsuite tidy-up patch, addressing to types of errors:
* The vcmp vector-scalar tests failing due to the compiler's preference
of vector-vector comparisons, over vector-scalar comparisons. This is
due to the lack of cost model for MVE and the compiler not knowing that
th
Hi all,
We noticed that calls to the vadcq and vsbcq intrinsics, both of
which use __builtin_arm_set_fpscr_nzcvqc to set the Carry flag in
the FPSCR, would produce the following code:
```
< r2 is the *carry input >
vmrsr3, FPSCR_nzcvqc
bic r3, r3, #536870912
orr r3, r3, r2, lsl #29
vm
We found this as part of the wider testsuite updates.
The applicable tests are authored by Andrea earlier in this patch series
Ok for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm_mve.h (__arm_vbicq): Change coerce on
scalar constant.
---
gcc/config/arm/arm_mve.h | 16
We found this as part of the wider testsuite updates.
The applicable tests are authored by Andrea earlier in this patch series
Ok for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm_mve.h (__arm_vbicq): Change coerce on
scalar constant.
(__arm_vmvnq_m): Likewise.
---
gcc/config/
These newly updated tests were rewritten by Andrea. Some of them
needed further manual fixing as follows:
* The #shift immediate value not in the check-function-bodies as expected
* The ACLE was specifying sub-optimal code: lsr+and instead of ubfx. In
this case the test rewritten from the ACLE h
Following Andrea's overhaul of the MVE testsuite, these tests are now
reduntant, as equivalent checks have been added to the each intrinsic's
.c test.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_fp_vaddq_n.c: Removed.
* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_vaddq_m.c:
Hi all,
This is a simple testsuite tidy-up patch, addressing to types of errors:
* The vcmp vector-scalar tests failing due to the compiler's preference
of vector-vector comparisons, over vector-scalar comparisons. This is
due to the lack of cost model for MVE and the compiler not knowing that
th
Hi all,
We noticed that calls to the vadcq and vsbcq intrinsics, both of
which use __builtin_arm_set_fpscr_nzcvqc to set the Carry flag in
the FPSCR, would produce the following code:
```
< r2 is the *carry input >
vmrsr3, FPSCR_nzcvqc
bic r3, r3, #536870912
orr r3, r3, r2, lsl #29
vm
From: Alexandre Oliva
Back in September last year, some of the vmsr and vmrs patterns had an
extraneous blank removed, and the case of register names lowered, but
another instance remained, and so did a testcase.
for gcc/ChangeLog
* config/arm/vfp.md (*thumb2_movsi_vfp): Drop blank aft
We found this as part of the wider testsuite updates.
The applicable tests are authored by Andrea earlier in this patch series
Ok for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm_mve.h (__arm_vorrq): Add _n variant.
---
gcc/config/arm/arm_mve.h | 10 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+
From: Andrea Corallo
Hi all,
this patch fixes the vstrwq* MVE instrinsics failing to emit the
correct sequence of instruction due to a missing predicate. Also the
immediate range is fixed to be multiples of 2 up between [-252, 252].
Best Regards
Andrea
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/c
- Respin of the below patch -
In this 2/2 patch, from v1 to v2 I have:
* Removed the modification the interface of the doloop_end target-insn
(so I no longer need to touch any other target backends)
* Added more modes to `arm_get_required_vpr_reg` to make it flexible
between searching
Hi all,
With these previous patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606586.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606587.html
we enabled the MVE overloaded _Generic associations to handle more
scalar types, however at PR 107515 we found a new regress
On 12/12/2022 13:42, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
Hi Stam,
-Original Message-
From: Stam Markianos-Wright
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 1:32 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
; Ramana Radhakrishnan
; ni...@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH] Fix memory constraint
Hi all,
In the M-Class Arm-ARM:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0553/bu/?lang=en
these MVE instructions only have '!' writeback variant and at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107714
we found that the Um constraint would also allow through a
register offset writeback,
Hi all,
With these previous patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606586.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606587.html
we enabled the MVE overloaded _Generic associations to handle more
scalar types, however at PR 107515 we found a new regress
On 11/15/22 15:51, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 11/11/2022 17:40, Stam Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs
On 11/20/22 22:49, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:59 PM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Corallo
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
; Stam Markianos
On 11/18/22 16:58, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Corallo
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
; Stam Markianos-Wright
Subject: [PATCH 15/35] arm: Explicitly specify other float types for _
On 11/18/22 16:49, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Corallo
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:38 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
; Stam Markianos-Wright
Subject: [PATCH 13/35] arm: further fix overloading of MVE vaddq[_m]_n
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs.
This support is added through the already existing loop-doloop
mechanisms that are used for non-MVE dls/le looping.
On 29/03/2021 10:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Stam Markianos-Wright wrote:
Hi all,
This patch resolves bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
This is achieved by forcing a re-calculati
On 24/03/2021 13:46, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Stam Markianos-Wright wrote:
Hi all,
This patch resolves bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
This is achieved by forcing a re-calculation of *stmt_vectype_out if an
incompatible combination of TYPE_VECTOR_SUB
Hi all,
This patch resolves bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974
This is achieved by forcing a re-calculation of *stmt_vectype_out if an
incompatible combination of TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS is detected, but with
an extra introduced max_nunits ceiling.
I am not 100% sure if thi
On 26/11/2020 09:01, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 14:24, Stam Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Hi all,
A while back I submitted GCC10 commit:
44f77a6dea2f312ee1743f3dde465c1b8453ee13
for PR91816.
Turns out I was an idiot and forgot to include the test in the
Hi all,
Now that I have pushed the entirety of this patch to gcc-10 and gcc-11,
I would like to backport it to gcc-8 and gcc-9.
PR link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816
This patch had originally been approved here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg02010
Hi all,
A while back I submitted GCC10 commit:
44f77a6dea2f312ee1743f3dde465c1b8453ee13
for PR91816.
Turns out I was an idiot and forgot to include the test in the actual
git commit, even my entire patch had been approved.
Tested that the test still passes on a cross arm-none-eabi and also
31 matches
Mail list logo
