ult implementation for all other targets would return false.
>
> Would you find such an approach tolerable?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
> email message attachment (Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Correct handling of
> multiply high-part for little endian), "Forwarded message - Re:
Hi maintainers,
I agree with David that duplicating this code is a bad approach. What
he and I would both prefer is to add a target hook to account for an
anomaly in the PowerPC architecture.
Background: For historical reasons, our vperm instruction (which is
produced for gen_vec_perm) has some
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When working around the peculiar little-endian semantics of the vperm
> instruction, our usual fix is to complement the permute control vector
> and swap the order of the two vector input operands, so that we get a
> double-wide vector
Hi,
When working around the peculiar little-endian semantics of the vperm
instruction, our usual fix is to complement the permute control vector
and swap the order of the two vector input operands, so that we get a
double-wide vector in the proper order. We don't want to swap the
operands when we
