On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:26:58AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Kirill Yukhin
> wrote:
> > On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> BTW, in glibc, there are
> >>
> >> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
> > Maybe. But I belive that this is much
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> BTW, in glibc, there are
>>
>> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
> Maybe. But I belive that this is much more clear to have instead:
>asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0
On 17 Mar 10:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> BTW, in glibc, there are
>
> asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "xmm0" );
Maybe. But I belive that this is much more clear to have instead:
asm volatile ("vmovdqa64 %0, %%zmm0" : : "x" (zmm) : "zmm0" );
--
Thanks, K
On 17 Mar 17:52, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> >> Is it ok for trunk?
> >> Do we need to backport it to 4.8?
> It does, but the situation is the same as with %eax vs. %rax names.
> So, I think the patch is OK for mainline, and similar patch involving
> o
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
register names in inline asm statements as well as
in `register` variables
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
>>> register names in inline asm statements as well as
>>> in `register` variables definitions.
>>>
>>> New tests pass.
>>> Bootstrap pass.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
>> register names in inline asm statements as well as
>> in `register` variables definitions.
>>
>> New tests pass.
>> Bootstrap pass.
>>
>> Is it ok for trunk?
>> Do we need to backport it to 4.8
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello,
> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
> register names in inline asm statements as well as
> in `register` variables definitions.
>
> New tests pass.
> Bootstrap pass.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
> Do we need to backport it t
Hello,
Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
register names in inline asm statements as well as
in `register` variables definitions.
New tests pass.
Bootstrap pass.
Is it ok for trunk?
Do we need to backport it to 4.8?
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.h (ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES): Ad
