On 18/09/15 09:35, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, we ditched the original reduce-to-vector variant due to its
endianess issues (it only had _one_ element of the vector contain
the reduction result). Re-introducing reduce-to-vector but with
the reduction result in all elements wouldn't have any issu
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 15:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 10:38 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 10:38 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > >
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 10:38 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > So just to clarify - you need to reduce the vector wi
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So just to clarify - you need to reduce the vector with max to a scalar
> > > but want the (same) result in all vector e
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:18:42AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So just to clarify - you need to reduce the vector with max to a scalar
> > but want the (same) result in all vector elements?
>
> Yes. Alan Hayward's cond-reduction patch
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > > > > On 16/
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 09:39 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
> > On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > > > On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > 2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > > On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > > 2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
> > > >
> > > > * config/rs6000/altivec.md (UNSPEC_REDUC_SM
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 18:03 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >> On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>> 2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
> >>>
> >>> * config/rs6000/altivec.md (UNSPEC_REDU
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 19:16 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/09/15 17:19, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >> I proposed a patch to migrate PPC off the old patterns, but have forgotten
> >> to
> >> ping it recently - last at
> >> https://gcc
On 16/09/15 17:19, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
I proposed a patch to migrate PPC off the old patterns, but have forgotten to
ping it recently - last at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01024.html ... (ping?!)
Hi Alan,
Thanks for t
On 16/09/15 17:10, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
* config/rs6000/altivec.md (UNSPEC_REDUC_SMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_SMIN,
UNSPEC_REDUC_UMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_UMIN, UNSPEC_R
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
> I proposed a patch to migrate PPC off the old patterns, but have forgotten to
> ping it recently - last at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01024.html ... (ping?!)
>
Hi Alan,
Thanks for this patch. I see that you test
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > 2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
> >
> > * config/rs6000/altivec.md (UNSPEC_REDUC_SMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_SMIN,
> > UNSPEC_REDUC_UMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_UMIN, UNSPEC_REDUC_SMAX_SCAL,
> >
On 16/09/15 15:28, Bill Schmidt wrote:
2015-09-16 Bill Schmidt
* config/rs6000/altivec.md (UNSPEC_REDUC_SMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_SMIN,
UNSPEC_REDUC_UMAX, UNSPEC_REDUC_UMIN, UNSPEC_REDUC_SMAX_SCAL,
UNSPEC_REDUC_SMIN_SCAL, UNSPEC_REDUC_UMAX_SCAL,
UNSPEC_REDUC_UMIN_
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 10:14 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:28:09AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > I was able to use iterators for the sub-doubleword ...scal_
> > expansions, but that's all. I experimented with trying to use
> > code_iterators to generate the {smax,sm
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:28:09AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> I was able to use iterators for the sub-doubleword ...scal_
> expansions, but that's all. I experimented with trying to use
> code_iterators to generate the {smax,smin,umax,umin} expansions, but
> couldn't find a way to make that work
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 15:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:34 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Bill Schmidt
>
> >
> > This is okay.
> >
> > I don't think that I have seen iterators for UNSPECs, but maybe
> > someone else is aware of t
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:34 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Bill Schmidt
>
> This is okay.
>
> I don't think that I have seen iterators for UNSPECs, but maybe
> someone else is aware of the right idiom.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Int-Iterators.html .
def
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A recent patch proposal from Alan Hayward
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00690.html) uncovered
> that the PowerPC back end doesn't have expansions for
> reduc_{smax,smin,umax,umin}_ and
> reduc_{smax,smin,umax,umin}_
Hi,
A recent patch proposal from Alan Hayward
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00690.html) uncovered
that the PowerPC back end doesn't have expansions for
reduc_{smax,smin,umax,umin}_ and
reduc_{smax,smin,umax,umin}_scal_ for the integer modes. This
prevents vectorization of reducti
23 matches
Mail list logo
