Re: [PATCH][AVX512] Swap Yk and k constraints.

2014-01-30 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote: > Turns out that for Icc meaning of Yk and k constraints > (exposed through inline asm) is opposite to current GCC implementation. > As Icc with such behavior was already releases and GCC wasn't. I propose > to swap meaning of Yk and k constrain

Re: [PATCH][AVX512] Swap Yk and k constraints.

2014-01-30 Thread Ilya Tocar
2014-01-30 H.J. Lu : > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Turns out that for Icc meaning of Yk and k constraints >> (exposed through inline asm) is opposite to current GCC implementation. >> As Icc with such behavior was already releases and GCC wasn't. I propose >> to

Re: [PATCH][AVX512] Swap Yk and k constraints.

2014-01-30 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote: > Hi, > > Turns out that for Icc meaning of Yk and k constraints > (exposed through inline asm) is opposite to current GCC implementation. > As Icc with such behavior was already releases and GCC wasn't. I propose > to swap meaning of Yk and k con

[PATCH][AVX512] Swap Yk and k constraints.

2014-01-30 Thread Ilya Tocar
Hi, Turns out that for Icc meaning of Yk and k constraints (exposed through inline asm) is opposite to current GCC implementation. As Icc with such behavior was already releases and GCC wasn't. I propose to swap meaning of Yk and k constraints. Changes are pretty mechanical. Bootstraps/passes make