On 09/18/2012 01:24 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Quite possibly. In order to determine what is right, we first need to
> understand the specification. My reading of that is that the semantics
> should be endian independent, but I was hoping that someone would know
> for certain and be able to ch
On 17/09/12 20:04, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 20:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 16:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 17 September 2012 17:21, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 17/09/12 16:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw w
On 17 September 2012 20:04, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 17/09/12 16:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 17 September 2012 17:21, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 17/09/12 16:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon w
On 17/09/12 16:50, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 17:21, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 16:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Although the recent optimiza
On 17 September 2012 17:21, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 17/09/12 16:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hello,
Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
instru
On 17/09/12 16:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
>>> instruction for suitable builtin_shuffle calls does not support
>>>
On 17 September 2012 14:56, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
>> instruction for suitable builtin_shuffle calls does not support
>> big-endian yet, I have written a patch to the exi
On 05/09/12 23:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
> instruction for suitable builtin_shuffle calls does not support
> big-endian yet, I have written a patch to the existing testcases such
> they now support big-endian mode.
>
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> OK. So I will remove the noinline stuff, and update the bugzilla entry
> with the name of this testcase.
> Should I really leave the test as FAILED rather then XFAIL?
No. Best to either add the test case as that bug is fixed or xfail it.
On 13 September 2012 19:07, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Ping?
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00330.html
>
> So, two things I thought I'd ask about:
>
>> +/* __attribute__ ((noinline)) is currently required, otherwise the
>> + ge
On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Ping?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00330.html
So, two things I thought I'd ask about:
> +/* __attribute__ ((noinline)) is currently required, otherwise the
> + generated code computes wrong results in big-endian. */
and:
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00330.html
Christophe.
On 6 September 2012 00:14, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Although the recent optimization I have committed to use Neon vext
> instruction for suitable builtin_shuffle calls does not support
> big-endian yet, I have
12 matches
Mail list logo
