Hi!
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:59:37AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > Why does the patch remove these two vec_sel? If that is wanted, the
> > changelog should mention this.
> No clue why I removed the vec_sel test. Been sitting on the testsuite
> patch set too long, I don't recall. I put it back
Segher:
> > - *out++ = vec_sel (in0, in1, inl);
> > - *out++ = vec_sel (in0, in1, inb);
> > *out++ = vec_sub (in0, in1);
> > *out++ = vec_sqrt (in0);
> > *out++ = vec_trunc (in0);
>
> Why does the patch remove these two vec_sel? If that is wanted, the
> changelog should mention this.
Hi Carl,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:52:27AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2018-04-30 Carl Love
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.h (foo): Add test for vec_max,
> vec_trunc.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6-le.c (dg-final): Update xvcmpeqdp,
>
GCC Maintainers:
I have re-worked the patch per Peter's comments. I retested the patch
on P8 BE, P8 LE and P9 LE.
Please let me know if the patch looks OK for GCC mainline.
Carl Love
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-
On 4/30/18 10:36 AM, Carl Love wrote:
> -/* We generate xxlor instructions for many reasons other than or'ing vector
> - operands or calling __builtin_vec_or(), which means we cannot rely on
> - their usage counts being stable. Therefore, we just ensure at least one
> - xxlor instruction wa
GCC Maintainers:
The following patch adds tests for the vec_max builtin.
The patch for the test case was tested on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 8 LE)
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 8 BE)
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 9 LE).
Please let me know if the patch looks
