On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:01 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2024 08:00, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
> >> On 29/10/2024 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> The testcases will FAIL unless the target has support for .SAT_ADD - you
> >>> want to
> >
On 31/10/2024 08:00, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
On 29/10/2024 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
The testcases will FAIL unless the target has support for .SAT_ADD - you want to
add proper effective target tests here.
The match.pd part looks OK to me.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2024 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 4:45 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
> >> Case 7 of unsigned scalar saturating addition defines
> >> SAT_ADD = X <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. This is the same as
> >> SAT_ADD = Y <= (
On 29/10/2024 12:48, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 4:45 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
Case 7 of unsigned scalar saturating addition defines
SAT_ADD = X <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. This is the same as
SAT_ADD = Y <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1 due to usadd_left_part_1
being commutative.
The p
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 4:45 PM Akram Ahmad wrote:
>
> Case 7 of unsigned scalar saturating addition defines
> SAT_ADD = X <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. This is the same as
> SAT_ADD = Y <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1 due to usadd_left_part_1
> being commutative.
>
> The pattern for case 7 currently does
Case 7 of unsigned scalar saturating addition defines
SAT_ADD = X <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. This is the same as
SAT_ADD = Y <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1 due to usadd_left_part_1
being commutative.
The pattern for case 7 currently does not accept the alternative
where Y is used in the condition. Ther
