Hello,
This patch introduces AVX-512BW's psadbw insn pattern.
Bootstrapped.
New tests on top of patch-set all pass
under simulator.
Is it ok for trunk?
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md
(define_mode_iterator VI8_AVX2_AVX512BW): New.
(define_insn "<sse2_avx2>_psadbw"): Add evex version.
--
Thanks, K
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index 0660ae4..5f51c3a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
@@ -288,6 +288,9 @@
[(V16SI "TARGET_AVX512F") (V8SI "TARGET_AVX2") V4SI
(V8DI "TARGET_AVX512F")])
+(define_mode_iterator VI8_AVX2_AVX512BW
+ [(V8DI "TARGET_AVX512BW") (V4DI "TARGET_AVX2") V2DI])
+
(define_mode_iterator VI8_AVX2
[(V4DI "TARGET_AVX2") V2DI])
@@ -10976,10 +10979,10 @@
;; The correct representation for this is absolutely enormous, and
;; surely not generally useful.
(define_insn "<sse2_avx2>_psadbw"
- [(set (match_operand:VI8_AVX2 0 "register_operand" "=x,x")
- (unspec:VI8_AVX2
- [(match_operand:<ssebytemode> 1 "register_operand" "0,x")
- (match_operand:<ssebytemode> 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm,xm")]
+ [(set (match_operand:VI8_AVX2_AVX512BW 0 "register_operand" "=x,v")
+ (unspec:VI8_AVX2_AVX512BW
+ [(match_operand:<ssebytemode> 1 "register_operand" "0,v")
+ (match_operand:<ssebytemode> 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm,vm")]
UNSPEC_PSADBW))]
"TARGET_SSE2"
"@
@@ -10989,7 +10992,7 @@
(set_attr "type" "sseiadd")
(set_attr "atom_unit" "simul")
(set_attr "prefix_data16" "1,*")
- (set_attr "prefix" "orig,vex")
+ (set_attr "prefix" "orig,maybe_evex")
(set_attr "mode" "<sseinsnmode>")])
(define_insn "<sse>_movmsk<ssemodesuffix><avxsizesuffix>"
