On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:30:42PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > The comment wants to say that, but doesn't do it correctly:
>> >Operand 0 is a vector; the first element in the vector has the result.
>> >Operand 1 is a vector. */
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:30:42PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The comment wants to say that, but doesn't do it correctly:
> >Operand 0 is a vector; the first element in the vector has the result.
> >Operand 1 is a vector. */
> > because obviously it doesn't have two operands, just on
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:42:44PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > This patch folds REDUC_*_EXPR (e.g. on pr54877.c -Ofast -mavx
>> > testcase we end up with unfolded REDUC_PLUS_EXPR
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:42:44PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > This patch folds REDUC_*_EXPR (e.g. on pr54877.c -Ofast -mavx
> > testcase we end up with unfolded REDUC_PLUS_EXPR till *.optimized).
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch folds REDUC_*_EXPR (e.g. on pr54877.c -Ofast -mavx
> testcase we end up with unfolded REDUC_PLUS_EXPR till *.optimized).
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Eh, I didn't realize the res
Hi!
This patch folds REDUC_*_EXPR (e.g. on pr54877.c -Ofast -mavx
testcase we end up with unfolded REDUC_PLUS_EXPR till *.optimized).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2012-10-10 Jakub Jelinek
* fold-const.c (fold_unary_loc): Handle REDUC_MIN_EXPR,
