"duanbo (C)" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:38 PM
>> To: duanbo (C)
>> Cc: GCC Patches
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR96757] aarch64: ICE during
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:38 PM
> To: duanbo (C)
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR96757] aarch64: ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect
>
> Thanks for the updat
Thanks for the update, looks good apart from…
"duanbo (C)" writes:
> @@ -4361,7 +4391,7 @@ vect_recog_mask_conversion_pattern (vec_info *vinfo,
>if (known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype1),
> TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype2))
> && (TREE_CODE (rhs1) == SSA_NAME
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 7:56 PM
> To: duanbo (C)
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR96757] aarch64: ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect
>
> Hi,
>
> "dua
Hi,
"duanbo (C)" writes:
> Sorry for the late reply.
My time to apologise for the late reply.
> Thanks for your suggestions. I have modified accordingly.
> Attached please find the v1 patch.
Thanks, the logic to choose which precision we pick looks good.
But I think the build_mask_conversions
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 2:31 AM
> To: duanbo (C)
> Cc: GCC Patches ; rguent...@suse.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH PR96757] aarch64: ICE during GIMPLE pass: vect
>
&
"duanbo (C)" writes:
> @@ -4395,6 +4395,40 @@ vect_recog_mask_conversion_pattern (vec_info *vinfo,
> {
> tmp = vect_recog_temp_ssa_var (TREE_TYPE (rhs1), NULL);
> pattern_stmt = gimple_build_assign (tmp, rhs1);
> + tree rhs1_op0 = TREE_OPERAND (rhs1, 0);
> + tree
