Hi Honza,
That should be fine unless vectorization is done using extract/insert
instructions.
Thanks,
Evgeny
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> my core tuning patch has caused regression gcc.target/i386/pr61403.c which I
> have
> missed in my testing. The testcase lo
Hi,
my core tuning patch has caused regression gcc.target/i386/pr61403.c which I
have
missed in my testing. The testcase looks for blend instruction which is no
longer
output. The reason is that the loop is now vectorized with SLP while before my
changes the costmodel claimed SLP vectorization
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:34:40PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Index: i386.c
>> ===
>> --- i386.c (revision 215802)
>> +++ i386.c (working copy)
>> @@ -43407,8 +43407,1
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:34:40PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Index: i386.c
> ===
> --- i386.c (revision 215802)
> +++ i386.c (working copy)
> @@ -43407,8 +43407,10 @@ expand_vec_perm_pblendv (struct expand_vec_perm_d
>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> And now the expand_vec_perm_palignr improvement, tested
>> with GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 make check-gcc \
>> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-mavx2 dg-torture.exp=vshuf*.c'
>> E.g.
>> typedef unsigned long long V __attribute__ ((vector_size
