Richard Henderson schrieb:
On 10/06/2011 04:46 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
So here it is. Lightly tested on my target: All tests either PASS or are
UNSUPPORTED now.
Ok?
Not ok, but only because I've completely restructured the tests again.
Patch coming very shortly...
Thanks, I hope your
On 10/06/2011 04:46 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> So here it is. Lightly tested on my target: All tests either PASS or are
> UNSUPPORTED now.
>
> Ok?
Not ok, but only because I've completely restructured the tests again.
Patch coming very shortly...
r~
Richard Guenther schrieb:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Richard Guenther schrieb:
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
> Hi, Richard
>
> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have com
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 12:51:54PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> The following patch avoids __SIZEOF_INT__.
>
> Ok by some maintainer to commit?
That is unnecessary. You can just add
#else
int
main ()
{
return 0;
}
before the final #endif in the files instead.
Or move around the #ifdefs, so
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Guenther schrieb:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>> Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
Hi, Richard
There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
for me. The code in ev
Richard Guenther schrieb:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
>>> Hi, Richard
>>>
>>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
>>> apply the followi
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
>> Hi, Richard
>>
>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
>> apply the following patch, otherwise it would fail
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
> Hi, Richard
>
> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
> apply the following patch, otherwise it would fail all the tests from
> the vector-shuffle-patch would fail.
>
> A
On 10/04/2011 08:18 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Ping.
>
> Richard, the patch in the attachment should be submitted asap. The
> other problem could wait for a while.
The patch in the attachment is wrong too. I've re-written the x86
backend support, adding TARGET_XOP in the process. I've also re
Ping.
Richard, the patch in the attachment should be submitted asap. The
other problem could wait for a while.
Thanks,
Artem.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>>
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> gcc/doc
> * extend.texi: Adjust.
Pretty please document the new pattern names in doc/md.texi as
well. Thanks in advance.
brgds, H-P
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Sorry for that, the vector comparison was submitted earlier. In the
> attachment there is a new version of the patch against the latest
> checkout.
>
> Richard, can you have a look at the genopinit.c, I am using
> set_direct_optab_handler,
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Hi, Richard
>>
>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
>> apply the following patch, ot
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> Hi, Richard
>>
>> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
>> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
>> apply the following patch, ot
On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Hi, Richard
>
> There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
> for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
> apply the following patch, otherwise it would fail all the tests from
> the vector-shuffle-pa
Hi, Richard
There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
apply the following patch, otherwise it would fail all the tests from
the vector-shuffle-patch would fail.
Also, if it is possible, could you change
On 10/03/2011 05:14 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Hi, can anyone commit it please?
>
> Richard?
> Or may be Richard?
Committed.
r~
Hi, can anyone commit it please?
Richard?
Or may be Richard?
Thanks,
Artem.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Sorry for that, the vector comparison was submitted earlier. In the
> attachment there is a new version of the patch against the latest
> checkout.
>
> Richar
On 09/30/2011 12:14 PM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Ok, in the attachment there is a patch which fixes mentioned errors.
The changes are ok. I would have committed it for you, only the patch
isn't against mainline. There are 4 rejects.
r~
> I hope that the new version looks a little bit better.
Nearly ok. Some trivial fixes, and then please commit.
> + rtx_v0 = expand_normal (v0);
> + rtx_mask = expand_normal (mask);
> +
> + create_output_operand (&ops[0], target, mode);
> + create_input_operand (&ops[3], rtx_mask, mode);
> +
On 09/29/2011 03:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Here is a new version of the patch which hopefully fixes all the
> formatting issues and uses expand_simple_binop instead of force_reg in
> binary operations.
>
> Ok?
Well, it's certainly not perfect by any means. But I guess I can fix
things up m
On 09/28/2011 05:59 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> I don't really understand this. As far as I know, expand_normal
> "converts" tree to rtx. All my computations are happening at the level
> of rtx and force_reg is needed just to bring an rtx expression to the
> register of the correct mode. If I am m
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> +The elements of the input vectors are numbered from left to right across
>> +one or both of the vectors. Each element in the mask specifies a number
>> +of element from the input vector(s). Consider the following example.
>
> It would b
> +The elements of the input vectors are numbered from left to right across
> +one or both of the vectors. Each element in the mask specifies a number
> +of element from the input vector(s). Consider the following example.
It would be more preferable to talk about the memory ordering of the
elemen
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Hi, sorry for the delay, I had a lot of other stuff to do.
>
> In the attachment there is a new patch that fixes all the issues
> pointed by Joseph and almost all the issues pointed by Richard. The
> issues that are not fixed are explained further.
Th
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi, sorry for the delay, I had a lot of other stuff to do.
>
> In the attachment there is a new patch that fixes all the issues
> pointed by Joseph and almost all the issues pointed by Richard. The
> issues that are not fixed are explained f
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> > No. ?You need to fold it (c_fully_fold) to eliminate any
> > C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR it contains, but you shouldn't need to wrap the result
> > of folding in a SAVE_EXPR.
>
> Ok, Now I get it, thanks.
>
> In the attachment there is a new version of the p
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph, I don't understand this comment. I have 2 or 3 arguments in
>>> the VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR and any of them can be C_MAYBE_CONST
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> Joseph, I don't understand this comment. I have 2 or 3 arguments in
> the VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR and any of them can be C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR,
Yes.
> so I
> need to wrap mask (the last argument) to avoid the following failure:
No. You need to fold it (c_full
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> + /* Avoid C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPRs inside VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR. */
>> + tmp = c_fully_fold (v0, false, &maybe_const);
>> + v0 = save_expr (tmp);
>> + wrap &= maybe_const;
>
> I suppose you need th
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> + /* Avoid C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPRs inside VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR. */
> + tmp = c_fully_fold (v0, false, &maybe_const);
> + v0 = save_expr (tmp);
> + wrap &= maybe_const;
I suppose you need this save_expr because of the two-argument case, but
shouldn't need
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> >
> >> 1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
> >> In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I think that I
> >> expressed tha
On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>> If you're going to add vector shuffling builtins, you might consider adding
>> the same builtin that clang has for compatibility:
>> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#__builtin_shufflevector
>>
>> It should be straight-forw
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
>> 1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
>> In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I think that I
>> expressed that in a pretty much short way without any helper function.
>
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
> 1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
> In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I think that I
> expressed that in a pretty much short way without any helper function.
> Am I missing something?
The point is to refactor what's commo
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Here is a newer version of the patch, which transforms the builtin to
> the VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR in the front-end.
>
> Several comments:
> 1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
> In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I thi
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Artem,
>
> On 31/08/11 10:27, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chris Lattner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>
>> The patch at the moment lacks of some examples
Hi Artem,
On 31/08/11 10:27, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the w
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the way I
am doing the expansion.
M
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the way I
am doing the expansion.
Mi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> This is a patch for the explicit vector shuffling we have discussed a
>>> long time ago here:
>>> http
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>>> The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
>>> fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the way I
>>> am doing the expansion.
>>>
>>> Middle-end parts seems to be more or less fine, they have not c
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Artem Shinkarov
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This is a patch for the explicit vector shuffling we have discussed a
>> long time ago here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01092.html
>>
>> The new pa
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> oh, hum - now I remember ;) Eventually the C frontend should handle
> this not via the function call mechanism but similar to how Joseph
> added __builtin_complex support with
>
> 2011-08-19 Joseph Myers
>
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_postfi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Artem Shinkarov
wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a patch for the explicit vector shuffling we have discussed a
> long time ago here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01092.html
>
> The new patch introduces the new tree code, as we agreed, and expands
> this co
45 matches
Mail list logo
