On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Rainer Orth wrote: > Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> writes: > > > On 12/08/15 10:51, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> writes: > >> > >>> This follow-up patch introduces a new effective target vect_min_max, > >>> similar to how effective target vect_bswap is implemented. > >>> > >>> Any comments? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> - Tom > >>> > >>> Add check_effective_target_vect_min_max > >>> > >>> 2015-08-12 Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com> > >>> > >>> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_min_max): New > >>> proc. > >>> * gcc.dg/vect/trapv-vect-reduc-4.c: Use vect_min_max effective target. > >> > >> Looks good to me, but the new effective-target keyword needs documenting > >> in sourcebuild.texi. > >> > > > > Hmm, in sourcebuild.texi I found: > > ... > > @item vect_no_int_max > > Target does not support a vector max instruction on @code{int}. > > ... > > > > That looks related. [ I also found a patch introducing vect_no_uint_max > > here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00152.html. ] > > > > I'm not sure where to take it from here. Should I introduce > > vect_no_int_min, and use that in combination with vect_no_int_max? > > I'd say this is something for the vectorizer maintainers to decide. Richi?
I expect the above is already effectively vect_no_int_min as well (which target would support min but not max...?). So after double-checking that you could rename it to vect_no_int_min_max. Richard.