Yeah, I agree that your approach is better. I missed this point. Thanks.
>
> Ah, sorry for the duplication of effort. And thanks for the heads-up about
> upcoming work! I don't think I have any plans for any of those others at the
> moment.
>
> In the case of vld1_dup, however, I'm going to a
Ah, sorry for the duplication of effort. And thanks for the heads-up about
upcoming work! I don't think I have any plans for any of those others at the moment.
In the case of vld1_dup, however, I'm going to argue that my approach
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01718.html) is bet
> These three are logically independent, but all on a common theme, and I've
> tested them all together by
>
> bootstrapped + check-gcc on aarch64-none-elf cross-tested check-gcc on
> aarch64_be-none-elf
>
> Ok for trunk?
Hi Alan,
It seems that we are duplicating the work for the vld1_dup
These three are logically independent, but all on a common theme, and I've
tested them all together by
bootstrapped + check-gcc on aarch64-none-elf
cross-tested check-gcc on aarch64_be-none-elf
Ok for trunk?
