On 12.11.20 13:21, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on IBM Z. Ok for master?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/s390/vector.md ("vec_vfees<mode>"): New insn pattern.
> ---
> gcc/config/s390/vector.md | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/vector.md b/gcc/config/s390/vector.md
> index 31d323930b2..4333a2191ae 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/s390/vector.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/s390/vector.md
> @@ -1798,6 +1798,32 @@
> "vll\t%v0,%1,%2"
> [(set_attr "op_type" "VRS")])
>
> +; vfeebs, vfeehs, vfeefs
> +; vfeezbs, vfeezhs, vfeezfs
> +(define_insn "vec_vfees<mode>"
> + [(set (match_operand:VI_HW_QHS 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> + (unspec:VI_HW_QHS [(match_operand:VI_HW_QHS 1 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:VI_HW_QHS 2 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:QI 3 "const_mask_operand" "C")]
> + UNSPEC_VEC_VFEE))
> + (set (reg:CCRAW CC_REGNUM)
> + (unspec:CCRAW [(match_dup 1)
> + (match_dup 2)
> + (match_dup 3)]
> + UNSPEC_VEC_VFEECC))]
> + "TARGET_VX"
> +{
> + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT flags = UINTVAL (operands[3]);
> +
> + gcc_assert (!(flags & ~(VSTRING_FLAG_ZS | VSTRING_FLAG_CS)));
> + flags &= ~VSTRING_FLAG_CS;
> +
> + if (flags == VSTRING_FLAG_ZS)
> + return "vfeez<bhfgq>s\t%v0,%v1,%v2";
> + return "vfee<bhfgq>s\t%v0,%v1,%v2";
> +}
> + [(set_attr "op_type" "VRR")])
> +
> ; vfenebs, vfenehs, vfenefs
> ; vfenezbs, vfenezhs, vfenezfs
> (define_insn "vec_vfenes<mode>"
>
Since this is mostly a copy of the pattern in vx-builtins.md I think we should
remove the other
version then.
I also would prefer this to be committed together with the code making use of
the expander. So far
this would be dead code - right?
Andreas
