On 12/10/2014 11:49 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 12/04/2014 01:49 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
+ if (!TARGET_AVX512BW || !(d->vmode == V64QImode))
Please don't over-complicate the expression.
Use x != y instead of !(x == y).
To me the original reads more clearly, since it
is of the parallel for
On 12/04/2014 01:49 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> + if (!TARGET_AVX512BW || !(d->vmode == V64QImode))
Please don't over-complicate the expression.
Use x != y instead of !(x == y).
r~
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> On 04 Dec 15:16, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I d
On 04 Dec 15:16, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
> >> >>
> >> >> Th
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>> >>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
>> >>
>> >> Those are executable testcases, those better should not fa
On 04 Dec 13:51, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
> >>> >
> >>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>> >
>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>> >
>>
>> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
>
> Those are executable testcase
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>>> >
>>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I didn't see them
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>> >
>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>> >
>>
>> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
>
> Those are executable testcase
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Can you add a few testcases?
> >
> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
> >
>
> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
Those are executable testcases, those better should not fail.
The patch just improved code ge
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:54:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
>> > This patch enables v64qi permutatio
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:54:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
> > This patch enables v64qi permutations.
> > I've checked vshuf* tests from dg-torture.exp,
> > w
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Ilya Tocar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
> This patch enables v64qi permutations.
> I've checked vshuf* tests from dg-torture.exp,
> with avx512* options on sde and generated permutations are correct.
>
>
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00473.html
This patch enables v64qi permutations.
I've checked vshuf* tests from dg-torture.exp,
with avx512* options on sde and generated permutations are correct.
OK for trunk?
---
gcc/config/i386/i386.c | 85 +
14 matches
Mail list logo
