> Do you mean a v8qi->v8hi widening subtract or a v16qi->v8hi widening
> subtract?
I mean the latter, that seemed to be what richi was suggesting previously.
> The problem with the latter is that we need to fill the
> extra unused elements with something and remove them later.
That's fair eno
Joel Hutton writes:
>>> So emit a v4qi->v8qi gimple conversion
>>> then a regular widen_lo/hi using the existing backend patterns/optabs?
>>
>>I was thinking of using a v8qi->v8hi convert on each operand followed
>>by a normal v8hi subtraction. That's what we'd generate if the target
>>didn't def
>> So emit a v4qi->v8qi gimple conversion
>> then a regular widen_lo/hi using the existing backend patterns/optabs?
>
>I was thinking of using a v8qi->v8hi convert on each operand followed
>by a normal v8hi subtraction. That's what we'd generate if the target
>didn't define the widening patterns.
Joel Hutton writes:
In practice this will only affect targets that choose to use mixed
vector sizes, and I think it's reasonable to optimise only for the
case in which such targets support widening conversions. So what
do you think about the idea of emitting separate conversio
>>> In practice this will only affect targets that choose to use mixed
>>> vector sizes, and I think it's reasonable to optimise only for the
>>> case in which such targets support widening conversions. So what
>>> do you think about the idea of emitting separate conversions and
>>> a normal subtr
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:19 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:03 PM Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi R
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:19 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:03 PM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Richard(s),
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm just l
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:03 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Richard(s),
>> >>
>> >> I'm just looking to see if I'm going about this the right way, based on
>> >> the discus
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:03 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Richard(s),
> >>
> >> I'm just looking to see if I'm going about this the right way, based on
> >> the discussion we had on IRC. I've managed to
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard(s),
>>
>> I'm just looking to see if I'm going about this the right way, based on the
>> discussion we had on IRC. I've managed to hack something together, I've
>> attached a (very) WIP patch which gives
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Joel Hutton wrote:
>
> Hi Richard(s),
>
> I'm just looking to see if I'm going about this the right way, based on the
> discussion we had on IRC. I've managed to hack something together, I've
> attached a (very) WIP patch which gives the correct codegen for the tes
Hi Richard(s),
I'm just looking to see if I'm going about this the right way, based on the
discussion we had on IRC. I've managed to hack something together, I've
attached a (very) WIP patch which gives the correct codegen for the testcase in
question (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
12 matches
Mail list logo
