On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:28:51PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Getting back to initial patch, is it ok?
>
> IMO, we should start with Jakub's proposed patch [1]
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00010.html
That doesn't compile, will post a new version; got interrupted when
I found that in
GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 make check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-mavx2 dg-torture.exp=vshuf*.c'
one test is miscompiled even with unpatched compiler, debugging that now.
That said, my patch will not do anything about the
case Mark mentioned { 1, 2, 3, ..., 31, 0 } permutation,
for that we can't do vpalignr followed by vpshufb or similar,
but need to do some permutation first and then vpalignr on
the result. So it would need a new routine. It is still a 2
insn permutation, not 6, and needs different algorithm, so sharing
the same routine for that is undesirable.
Jakub
