On 8 October 2012 22:18, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 October 2012 23:05, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> >> On 7 October 2012 13:12, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 5 October 2012 14:46, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5 October 2012 11:28, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 3 October 2012 16:40, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3 October 2012 02:31, jerro <a...@a.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> import core.simd, std.stdio; >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> void main() >> >> >> >> { >> >> >> >> float4 a = 1, b = 2; >> >> >> >> writeln((a + b).array); // WORKS: [3, 3, 3, 3] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> float4 c = [1, 2, 3, 4]; // ERROR: "Stored value type does >> >> >> >> // not match pointer operand type!" >> >> >> >> // [..a bunch of LLVM error code..] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> float4 c = 0, d = 1; >> >> >> >> c.array[0] = 4; >> >> >> >> c.ptr[1] = 4; >> >> >> >> writeln((c + d).array); // WRONG: [1, 1, 1, 1] >> >> >> >> } >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Oh, that doesn't work for me either. I never tried to use those, >> >> >> > so I >> >> >> > didn't >> >> >> > notice that before. This code gives me internal compiler errors >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > GDC >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > DMD too (with "float4 c = [1, 2, 3, 4]" commented out). I'm using >> >> >> > DMD >> >> >> > 2.060 >> >> >> > and a recent versions of GDC and LDC on 64 bit Linux. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then don't just talk about it, raise a bug - otherwise how do you >> >> >> expect it to get fixed! ( http://www.gdcproject.org/bugzilla ) >> >> >> >> >> >> I've made a note of the error you get with `__vector(float[4]) c = >> >> >> [1,2,3,4];' - That is because vector expressions implementation is >> >> >> very basic at the moment. Look forward to hear from all your >> >> >> experiences so we can make vector support rock solid in GDC. ;-) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I didn't realise vector literals like that were supported properly in >> >> > the >> >> > front end yet? >> >> > Do they work at all? What does the code generated look like? >> >> >> >> They get passed to the backend as of 2.060 - so looks like the >> >> semantic passes now allow them. >> >> >> >> I've just recently added backend support in GDC - >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/7ada3d95b8af1b271d82f1ec5208f0b689eb143c#L1R1194 >> >> >> >> The codegen looks like so: >> >> >> >> float4 a = 2; >> >> float4 b = [1,2,3,4]; >> >> >> >> ==> >> >> vector(4) float a = { 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0 }; >> >> vector(4) float b = { 1.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 3.0e+0, 4.0e+0 }; >> >> >> >> ==> >> >> movaps .LC0, %xmm0 >> >> movaps %xmm0, -24(%ebp) >> >> movaps .LC1, %xmm0 >> >> movaps %xmm0, -40(%ebp) >> >> >> >> .align 16 >> >> .LC0: >> >> .long 1073741824 >> >> .long 1073741824 >> >> .long 1073741824 >> >> .long 1073741824 >> >> .align 16 >> >> .LC1: >> >> .long 1065353216 >> >> .long 1073741824 >> >> .long 1077936128 >> >> .long 1082130432 >> > >> > >> > Perfect! >> > I can get on with my unittests :P >> >> I fixed them again. >> >> >> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/9402516e0b07031e841a15849f5dc94ae81dccdc#L4R1201 >> >> >> float a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4; >> float4 f = [a,b,c,d]; >> >> ===> >> movss -16(%rbp), %xmm0 >> movss -12(%rbp), %xmm1 > > > Errr, that's not fixed...? > movss is not the opcode you're looking for. > Surely that should produce a single movaps...
I didn't say I compiled with optimisations - only -march=native. =) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';