On Thu, 12 May 2022 at 16:15, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:44, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:00, Richard Sandiford
&g
On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 22:57, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 21:21, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 19:22, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > > On T
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 14:12, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2022 at 16:15, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:44, Richard Sandiford
&g
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 16:29, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > {
> >> >/* The pattern matching functions above are written to look for a
> >> > small
> >> > number to begin the sequence (0, 1, N/2).
Hi,
I just noticed -fdump-statistics supports asmname sub-option, which
according to the doc states:
"If DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME has been set for a given decl, use that in the dump
instead of DECL_NAME. Its primary use is ease of use working backward from
mangled names in the assembly file."
When pass
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 12:52, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:05 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just noticed -fdump-statistics supports asmname sub-option, which
> > according to the doc states:
> > &qu
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 16:15, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Sent: 14 June 2021 08:58
> > To: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR97906 - Missed lowering abs(a) >
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 15:49, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 16:15, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > Sent: 14 June 2021 08:58
> > > To:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 16:01, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 15:22, Prathamesh Kulkarni
Hi,
The attached patch gates abs(__a) cmp abs(__b) for vca intrinsics on
__FAST_MATH__. I moved vabs intrinsics before vcage_f32 since vca
intrinsics use those.
Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2021-06-22 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR target/66791
Hi,
This patch adds an entry for cscope.out in .gitignore.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
ignore-cscope.diff
Description: Binary data
posted a fix for it here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572648.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2021-06-24 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR target/66791
* gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h (vdup_n_s8): Replace call to builtin
with constructor.
(vdup_n_s16): Likewise
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > To: Christophe Lyon
> > Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >
> > Subject: Re: [AR
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 15:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch gates abs(__a) cmp abs(__b) for vca intrinsics on
> __FAST_MATH__. I moved vabs intrinsics before vcage_f32 since vca
> intrinsics use those.
> Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 14:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 16:01, Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> To: Kyrylo Tkach
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 14:00, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Sent: 29 June 2021 08:21
> > To: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR66791: Gate comparison in vca intri
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>&
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 14:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 15:27, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 21:07, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >&
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 14:37, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 14:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 15:27, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >
Hi,
For the following test-case:
int16x8_t foo(int16_t x, int16_t y)
{
return (int16x8_t) { x, y, x, y, x, y, x, y };
}
Code gen at -O3:
foo:
dupv0.8h, w0
ins v0.h[1], w1
ins v0.h[3], w1
ins v0.h[5], w1
ins v0.h[7], w1
ret
For
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 20:43, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 6:40 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > For the following test-case:
> >
> > int16x8_t foo(int16_t x, int16_t y)
> > {
> > return (in
Hi,
The following test:
#include "arm_sve.h"
svint8_t
test_s8(int8_t *x)
{
return svld1rq_s8 (svptrue_b8 (), &x[0]);
}
ICE's with -march=armv8.2-a+sve -O1 -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-forwprop:
during GIMPLE pass: fre
pr107920.c: In function ‘test_s8’:
pr107920.c:7:1: internal compiler error: in ex
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 09:51, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> These functions currently repeatedly dereference tp during the subtree
> walk, dereferences which the compiler can't CSE because it can't
> guarantee that the subtree walking doesn't modify *tp.
>
> But we already implicitly req
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 16:50, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> Hi,
> >> For the following test-case:
> >>
> >> int16x8_t foo(int16_t x, int16_t y)
> >
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 00:08, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The following test:
> >
> > #include "arm_sve.h"
> >
> > svint8_t
> > test_s8(int8_t *x)
> > {
> > return svld1rq_s8 (svptrue
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 19:08, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 23:11, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > I have attached a WIP
Hi,
The patch folds:
lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, -1, ...}, &v[0])
into:
lhs = vec_perm_expr
and expands above vec_perm_expr using aarch64_expand_sve_dupq.
With patch, for following test:
#include
#include
svint32_t
foo (int32x4_t x)
{
return svld1rq (svptrue_b8 (), &x[0]);
}
it generates followi
Hi,
The attached patch rearranges order of type-check for vec_perm_expr
and relaxes type checking for
lhs = vec_perm_expr
when:
rhs1 == rhs2,
lhs is variable length vector,
rhs1 is fixed length vector,
TREE_TYPE (lhs) == TREE_TYPE (rhs1)
I am not sure tho if this check is correct ? My intent was
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 17:03, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The patch folds:
> > lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, -1, ...}, &v[0])
> > into:
> > lhs = vec_perm_expr
> > and expands above vec_perm_expr using aarch64_expa
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 16:37, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch rearranges order of type-check for vec_perm_expr
> > and relaxes type checking for
> > lhs = vec_perm_expr
> >
> > when:
> >
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 13:03, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the slow reply.
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > Unfortunately it regresses code-gen for the following case:
> > >
> >
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 11:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > While digging thru aarch64_expand_vector_init, I noticed it gives
> > priority to loading a constant first:
> >
Hi,
For the following test:
svint32_t f(svint32_t v)
{
return svrev_s32 (svrev_s32 (v));
}
We generate 2 rev instructions instead of nop:
f:
rev z0.s, z0.s
rev z0.s, z0.s
ret
The attached patch tries to fix that by trying to recognize the following
pattern in ma
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 23:35, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 13:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On GIMPLE it would be
> >>
> >> _1 = { a, ... }; // (a)
> >> _2 = { _1, ... }; // (b)
> >
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 23:35, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:39 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > For the following test:
> >
> > svint32_t f(svint32_t v)
> > {
> > return svrev_s32 (svrev_s32
1001 - 1038 of 1038 matches
Mail list logo
