Hi,
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Like so. Currently regstrapping on x86_64-linux. Okay if that
> > succeeds?
>
> OK, with a nit - I'd introduce RECIP_MASK_NONE and use it in place of 0
> in a couple of places.
Okay. r179608 it is.
Ciao,
Michael.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Looking at this topic again, I'd propose that x86 adopts approach from
>> rs6000. The rs6000 approach is more extensible, and offers the same
>> flexibility, due to "!".
>>
>> So, x86 could have "-mrecip=", with all, default, none, div,
>> ve
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Looking at this topic again, I'd propose that x86 adopts approach from
> rs6000. The rs6000 approach is more extensible, and offers the same
> flexibility, due to "!".
>
> So, x86 could have "-mrecip=", with all, default, none, div,
> vec-div, divf
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> > I've decided to not use four new bits from target_flags, and instead
>>> > created a new mask (recip_mask). Four bits would have fit in target
>>> > bits right now, but in the future we might want to add more
>>> > specialization, like m
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> >> > I've decided to not use four new bits from target_flags, and instead
> >> > created a new mask (recip_mask). Four bits would have fit in target
> >> > bits right now, but
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 02:44:07PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > I'd like to have tighter control over the individual situations that
> > -mrecip handles, and I think the user might appreciate this too. Hence
> > I've introduced four new t
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>>> > I've decided to not use four new bits from target_flags, and instead
>>> > created a new mask (recip_mask). Four bits would have fit in target
>>> > bits right now, but in the futur
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> > I've decided to not use four new bits from target_flags, and instead
>> > created a new mask (recip_mask). Four bits would have fit in target
>> > bits right now, but in the future we might want to add more
>> > specialization, like modes
Hi,
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > I've decided to not use four new bits from target_flags, and instead
> > created a new mask (recip_mask). Four bits would have fit in target
> > bits right now, but in the future we might want to add more
> > specialization, like modes for which
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> I'd like to have tighter control over the individual situations that
> -mrecip handles, and I think the user might appreciate this too. Hence
> I've introduced four new target options -mrecip-div, -mrecip-sqrt,
> -mrecip-vec-div and -mrecip-
Hello,
I'd like to have tighter control over the individual situations that
-mrecip handles, and I think the user might appreciate this too. Hence
I've introduced four new target options -mrecip-div, -mrecip-sqrt,
-mrecip-vec-div and -mrecip-vec-sqrt. I've redefined -mrecip to be
equivalent
11 matches
Mail list logo
