on 2023/6/2 04:01, Carl Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 12:59 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> On 5/22/23 4:04 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
@@ -3161,12 +3161,15 @@
void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrbx (vsq, signed long, signed
char *
On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 12:59 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 5/22/23 4:04 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > @@ -3161,12 +3161,15 @@
> > >void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrbx (vsq, signed long, signed
> > > char *);
> > > TR_STXVRBX vsx_stxvrbx
On 5/22/23 4:04 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> @@ -3161,12 +3161,15 @@
>>void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrbx (vsq, signed long, signed char *);
>> TR_STXVRBX vsx_stxvrbx {stvec}
>>
>> - void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx (vsq, signed long, si
on 2023/5/23 03:50, Carl Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 17:04 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> GCC maintainers:
>>>
>>> The following patch fixes errors in the arguments in the
>>> __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx, __builtin_a
On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 17:04 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > GCC maintainers:
> >
> > The following patch fixes errors in the arguments in the
> > __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx, __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrwx
> > builtin
> > defini
Hi Carl,
on 2023/5/11 02:06, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> GCC maintainers:
>
> The following patch fixes errors in the arguments in the
> __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx, __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrwx builtin
> definitions. Note, these builtins are used by the overloaded
> __builtin_vec_xst_tr
Peter:
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 16:28 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
>
> > + void __builtin_vec_xst_trunc (vsq, signed long long, signed long
> > *);
> > +TR_STXVRLX TR_STXVRLX_S
> > + void __builtin_vec_xst_trunc (vuq, signed long long, unsigned
> > long *);
> > +TR_STXVRLX TR_STXVRL
On 5/10/23 1:06 PM, Carl Love wrote:
> - void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx (vsq, signed long, signed int *);
> + void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrhx (vsq, signed long, signed short *);
> TR_STXVRHX vsx_stxvrhx {stvec}
>
> - void __builtin_altivec_tr_stxvrwx (vsq, signed long, signed short *
