On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 06:26:28AM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 06:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:48:27AM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Pointers are certainly a decent fallback that would always be compatible,
> >> but I wonder if we need go tha
On 11/15/2013 06:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:48:27AM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Pointers are certainly a decent fallback that would always be compatible,
>> but I wonder if we need go that far.
>>
>> Each target will have a (set of) natural simdlen to which it v
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:48:27AM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Pointers are certainly a decent fallback that would always be compatible,
> but I wonder if we need go that far.
>
> Each target will have a (set of) natural simdlen to which it vectorizes. This
> is the set returned by autovect
On 11/14/2013 02:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As discussed earlier, if we strictly follow the Intel ABI for simds,
> we run into various issues. The clones then have to use __regcall calling
> convention which e.g. mandates that on x86_64 up to 16 vector arguments
> are passed in xmm/ymm register
