> Is that what you tried?
That's what I tried, yes, but it seems that either I had a mistake in my
version or I hadn't done a full rebuild. I re-built it now and it appears
to work, thanks. Now just chasing an aarch64 SLP ICE with my patches still.
--
Regards
Robin
"Robin Dapp" writes:
>>> For the lack of a better idea I used a function call property to specify
>>> whether a builtin needs an else operand or not. Somebody with better
>>> knowledge of the aarch64 target can surely improve that.
>>
>> Yeah, those flags are really for source-level/gimple-level
>> For the lack of a better idea I used a function call property to specify
>> whether a builtin needs an else operand or not. Somebody with better
>> knowledge of the aarch64 target can surely improve that.
>
> Yeah, those flags are really for source-level/gimple-level attributes.
> Would it work
Robin Dapp writes:
> This adds zero else operands to masked loads and their intrinsics.
> I needed to adjust more than initially thought because we rely on
> combine for several instructions and a change in a "base" pattern
> needs to propagate to all those.
Looks less invasive than I'd feared th
This adds zero else operands to masked loads and their intrinsics.
I needed to adjust more than initially thought because we rely on
combine for several instructions and a change in a "base" pattern
needs to propagate to all those.
For the lack of a better idea I used a function call property to s
