On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 17:41, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Tested powerpc64le-linux. Pushed to trunk.
Hi Jonathan,
This patch causes following regression on armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf:
FAIL: std/format/functions/format.cc execution test
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_3/a
On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 00:23, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > The s32 case for single constant patch doesn't regress now after the
> > above commit.
> > Bootstrapped+tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, and verified that the new
> > tests pass for aarch64_be-l
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 12:38, Tejas Belagod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:15 PM
> To: Tejas Belagod
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org , Tejas Belagod
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [PR96339] Optimise svlast[ab]
> Tejas Belagod writes:
> > F
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 17:35, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Now committed as r14-2462-g450b05ce54d3f0.
Hi Tobias,
The newly added tests in above commit -- alloc-11.c and alloc-12.c
seem to fail during execution
on armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf:
Running libgomp:libgomp.c++/c++.exp ...
FAIL: libgomp.c+
Hi Richard,
This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec_perm to handle VLA vectors.
The attached patch unifies handling of VLS and VLA vector_csts, while
using fallback code
for ctors.
For VLS vector, the patch ignores underlying encoding, and
uses npatterns = nelts, and nelts_per_pattern = 1.
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 15:20, Serval Martinot-Lagarde via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> SVE generates superflous rev instructions that can be replaced
> by single mov instruction or a pair of (rev, mov) instructions
Hi Serval,
I had added a similar transform to remove pair of rev instructions in:
https:/
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 13:26, Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> Ping!
>
> please review.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Ajit
>
>
> This patch improves code sinking pass to sink statements before call to reduce
> register pressure.
> Review comments are incorporated.
>
> For example :
>
> void bar(
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 21:05, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Upon David's request I've joined the in progress patch to the below email.
> I hope it makes more sense now.
>
> Best,
> Benjamin.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Benjamin Priour
> Date: Tue, Jul 1
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 17:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
> This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec_perm to handle VLA vectors.
> The attached patch unifies handling of VLS and VLA vector_csts, while
> using fallback code
> for ctors.
>
> For VLS vector, the patch ignores unde
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the delay in backport to gcc-13.
The attached patch (cherry picked from master) is bootstrapped+tested
on aarch64-linux-gnu with SVE enabled on gcc-13 branch.
OK to commit to gcc-13 branch ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
[aarch64/match.pd] Fix ICE observed in PR110280.
gcc/ChangeLog:
Sorry, I meant PR110280 in subject line (not PR10280).
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 23:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
> Sorry for the delay in backport to gcc-13.
> The attached patch (cherry picked from master) is bootstrapped+tested
> on aarch64-linux-gnu with SVE enabled on gcc-13 br
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestions! Please find my responses inline below.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 12:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I meant PR110280 in subject line (not PR10280).
>
> OK after 13.2 is released and the branch is open again.
Thanks, committed the patch to releases/gcc-13 branch in:
https://gcc.gnu
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 16:52, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> This patch adds a warning for allocations with insufficient size
> based on the "alloc_size" attribute and the type of the pointer
> the result is assigned to. While it is theoretically legal to
> assign to the wrong pointe
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 19:59, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> Comparisons between memory and constants might be done in a smaller mode
> resulting in smaller constants which might finally end up as immediates
> instead of in the literal pool.
>
> For example, on s390x a non-
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 03:13, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 19:59, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > Comparisons between memory and constants might be done in a smaller mode
> > resulting in smaller constants which might finally end up as immediat
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 05:20, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/23 15:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 19:59, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
> > Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>
> >> Comparisons between memory and
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 at 03:08, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-07-05 at 21:49 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > This patch fixes the ICE reported in PR106181 by Arseny Solokha. With
> > this patch, the allocation size checker tries to handle floating-point
> > operands of allocation
Hi,
My recent commit to emit asm name with -fdump-statistics-asmname
caused following ICE
for attached fortran test case.
during IPA pass: icf
power.fppized.f90:6:26:
6 | END SUBROUTINE power_print
| ^
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xfddc13 crash_s
Hi Richard,
For the following test:
svint32_t f2(int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
int32x4_t v = (int32x4_t) {a, b, c, d};
return svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8 (), &v[0]);
}
The compiler emits following ICE with -O3 -mcpu=generic+sve:
foo.c: In function ‘f2’:
foo.c:4:11: error: non-trivial conversion i
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 12:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:12 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > For the following test:
> >
> > svint32_t f2(int a, int b, int c, int d)
> > {
> > i
Hi,
For following test case:
svint32_t foo()
{
int32x4_t v = (int32x4_t) { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
svint32_t v2 = svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8(), &v[0]);
return v2;
}
After applying workaround in forwprop to not simplify VEC_PERM_EXPR in
simplify_permutation to avoid type error in middle end (or using
-fn
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 17:22, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 12:22, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >
ul 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 12:22, Richard Biener
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Ju
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 at 23:31, Immad Mir via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch adds three new function attributes to GCC that
> are used for static analysis of usage of file descriptors:
>
> 1) __attribute__ ((fd_arg(N))): The attributes may be applied to a function
> that
> takes on open file des
t; > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 12:22, Richard Biener
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 00:41, Sam Feifer via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a new optimization to match.pd. The pattern, -x & 1,
> now gets simplified to x & 1, reducing the number of instructions
> produced.
Hi Sam,
No comments on patch, but wondering if we can similarly add another patter
Hi Richard,
Following from off-list discussion, in the attached patch, I wrote pattern
similar to vec_duplicate_reg, which seems to work for the svld1rq tests.
Does it look OK ?
Sorry, I didn't fully understand your suggestion on integrating with
vec_duplicate_reg
pattern. For vec_duplicate_reg, t
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 18:26, Andre Vieira (lists)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is part of the WIP patch that follows in this series. It's
> goal is to teach forwprop to handle VLA VEC_PERM_EXPRs with VLS
> CONSTRUCTORs as arguments as preparation for the 'VLA constructor' hook
> approach.
gt; > > > > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 17:22, Richard Sandiford
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Biener writes:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 17:22, Richard Sandiford
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard Biener writes:
> &
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 22:39, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This is a new version of the patch.
> Instead of doing the matching of inversion comparison directly inside
> match, creating a new function (bitwise_inverted_equal_p) to do it.
> It is very similar to bitwise_equal_p that was
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 02:54, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:14 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:13 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 22:39,
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 14:17, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/28/23 01:05, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > The following delays sinking of loads within the same innermost
> > > loop when it was unconditional before. That
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 18:46, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> Thanks for
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> can_div_trunc_p (a, b, &Q, &r) tries to compute a Q and r that
> satisfy the usual conditions for truncating division:
>
> (1) a = b * Q + r
> (2) |b * Q| <= |a|
> (3) |r| < |b|
>
> We can compute Q using the constant compone
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 23:28, Bradley Lucier via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The patch at the end adds a warning when a tail/sibling call cannot be
> optimized for various reasons.
>
> I built and tested GCC with and without the patch with configuration
>
> Configured with: ../../gcc-mainline/configure
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 03:07, Bradley Lucier wrote:
>
> On 8/5/23 4:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > I don't have comments on the patch, but a new warning will also
> > require a corresponding entry in doc/invoke.texi.
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> -Wdisabled-optimization is an establish
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 20:36, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
Thanks for the detailed review! Please find my responses inline below.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
> > index 7e5494
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:48, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 14:17, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 15:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 20:36, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
> > Thanks for the detailed review! Please find my responses inline below
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> static bool
> >> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
> >> {
> >> if (size.is_constant ())
> >> return false;
> >> for (int i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE (size.coeffs); ++i)
> >> if (size[i] != (i <=
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 13:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:05 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 06:39, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The following patch fixes useless asserts in my latest patch
> implementing output stack pointer reloads.
Hi Vladimir,
It seems that this patch caused the following ICE on aarch64-linux-gnu
while building cp-demangle.c:
comp
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:23, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> >> static bool
> >> >> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
> >> >> {
> >> >> if (size.is_constant
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 16:59, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:23, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > >> >> static bool
> > >> >>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 15:21, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> Unfortunately, the patch regressed following tests on ppc64le and
> >> armhf respectively:
> >> gcc.target/powerpc/vec-perm-ctor.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized
> >> "VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR"
> >> gcc.dg/tree-ssa
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 14:28, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 13:19, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >> > It doesn't seem to make a difference for x86. That said, the "fix" is
> >> > probably sticki
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 14:52, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > Richard Biener writes:
> > > The following avoids running into somehow flawed logic in fold_vec_perm
> > > for non-VLA vectors.
> > >
> > > Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-lin
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 17:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 14:28, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Biener writes:
> > > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023, Pr
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 12:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 14:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard Biener writes:
> > > > > The following avoids running
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 12:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 17:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 14:12, yanzhang.wang--- via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> From: Yanzhang Wang
>
> The pattern is enabled for scalar but not for vector. The patch try to
> make it consistent and will convert below code,
(CCing Richard S.)
Hi,
Sorry if this comment is not relevant to the patch but
Hi Richard,
For the following reduced test-case taken from PR:
#include "arm_sve.h"
svuint32_t l() {
alignas(16) const unsigned int lanes[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0};
return svld1rq_u32(svptrue_b8(), lanes);
}
compiling with -O3 -mcpu=generic+sve results in following ICE:
during GIMPLE pass: fre
pr1102
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 16:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:56 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > For the following reduced test-case taken from PR:
> >
> > #include "arm_sve.h"
> >
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 at 18:06, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:08 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 16:47, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:56 AM Pra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 16:47, Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:56 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > > > > wrote:
> &g
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 20:33, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> After the recent MVE intrinsics re-implementation, LTO stopped working
> because the intrinsics would no longer be defined.
>
> The main part of the patch is simple and similar to what we do for
> AArch64:
> - call handle_arm
Hi Richard,
Sorry I forgot to commit this patch, which you had approved in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615308.html
Just for context for the following test:
svint32_t f_s32(int32x4_t x)
{
return svdupq_s32 (x[0], x[1], x[2], x[3]);
}
-O3 -mcpu=generic+sve generates foll
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 00:05, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > Sorry I forgot to commit this patch, which you had approved in:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615308.html
> >
> > Just for context for the following test:
> > svin
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 16:43, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 10:33 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> >
> > > If a bit-field is signed and it's wider than the output type, we
> > > must
> > > ensure the extracted result sign-extended
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 01:01, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > > > If we have division and remainder calculations with the same operands:
> > > >
> > > > a = b / c;
> > > > d = b % c;
> > > >
> > > > We can replace the calculation of
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 00:37, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-18.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-18.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..598a51f17c6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 00:45, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 18:22, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 17:32, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 00:29, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > After committing the interleave+zip1 patch for vector initialization,
> > it seems to regress the s32 case for this patch:
> >
> > int32x4_t f_s32(int32_t x)
> > {
> > return (int32x4_t) {
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 13:37, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 00:29, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > After committing the interleave+zip1 patch for vector initialization,
> >> > it s
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 22:04, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 13:37, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 00:29, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 14:18, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > Thanks for the suggestions. Does the attached patch look OK ?
> > Boostrap+test in progress on aarch64-linux-gnu.
>
> Like I say, please wait for the tests to complete before sending an RFA.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:40, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 14:18, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > Thanks for the suggestions. Does the attached patch look OK ?
> >> > Boostrap+tes
On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 01:28, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:40, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 14:18, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:04, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> LGTM, just a couple of comment tweaks:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> > index d6fc94015fa..db7ca4c28c3 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> > ++
On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 15:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:04, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > LGTM, just a couple of comment tweaks:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> > > index d6
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 17:23, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 1/19/21 5:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch fixes the issue mentioned in PR, by adding
> > arm_fp16_format to checked_options in optc-save-gen.awk.
> > Is this OK to commit in stage-4 if testing passes or shoul
Hi,
For the following test-case:
#include
uint8x8_t f1(int8x8_t a, int8x8_t b) {
return (uint8x8_t) ((a & b) != 0);
}
gcc fails to lower test operation to vtst, and instead emits:
f1:
vandd0, d0, d1
vceq.i8 d0, d0, #0
vmvnd0, d0
bx lr
The attached
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 16:32, Ayush Mittal via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Dynamic memory referenced by 'buffer' was allocated using xmalloc but fails
> to free it
> when jump to 'error' label.
>
> Issue as per static analysis tool.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ayush Mittal
> Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh
> -
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Origi
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
> to corresponding vdup_n intrinsic and removes entry for vld1_dup from
> arm_neon_builtins.def.
> Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
> OK to commit ?
p
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > This patch replaces builtins with __a * __b for signed variants of
> > > vmul_n intrin
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul
12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarn
i
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On
i
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> &g
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 18:23, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 2:34 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 16:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Christophe Lyon
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Prathamesh,
>> > >
>>
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > Sent: 24 June 2021 12:11
>> > To: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
>> >
>> > Subject: [A
Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>>
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > This
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:37, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
> > to corresponding vdup_n intrinsic and removes entry for vld1_dup from
> > arm_neon_built
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 19:04, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:54 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 11:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 19:04, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:54 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:37, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
> > > to corresp
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 5 Jul 20
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 19:57, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 15:51, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry for the slow reply. I wrote a response a couple of weeks ago
> >> but I think it get lost in a machine outage.
> >>
> >> Pratham
On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 18:09, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 19:57, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> >> The VLA encoding encodes the first N patterns explicitly. The
> >> >> npatterns/nelts_per_patter
On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 21:33, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 18:09, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 19:57, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarn
On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 01:59, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 21:33, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 18:09, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarn
On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 21:38, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> Sorry to ask a silly question but in which case shall we select 2nd vector
> >> ?
> >> For num_poly_int_coeffs == 2,
> >> a1 /trunc n1 == (a1 + 0x) / (n1.co
Hi Richard,
I have attached a WIP untested patch for PR96463.
IIUC, the PR suggests to transform
lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ...}, &v[0])
into:
lhs = vec_perm_expr
if v is vector of 4 elements, and each element is 32 bits on little
endian target ?
I am sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but I
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 23:11, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > I have attached a WIP untested patch for PR96463.
> > IIUC, the PR suggests to transform
> > lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ...}, &v[0])
> > into:
> > lhs = vec_perm_expr
> > if v is vector of 4 ele
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 16:18, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 21:38, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > >> Sorry to ask a silly question but in which case shall we select 2nd
> > >> vector ?
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 16:02, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 16:18, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 21:38, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches writes:
> > > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > >> Sorry t
1 - 100 of 317 matches
Mail list logo
