Can a new case be rewritten then?
- Joey
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yangfei (Felix) <felix.y...@huawei.com> wrote:
> No, we noticed this issue when improving the vld1(q?)_dup intrinsics. Thanks.
>
>
>> Is there a case or PR to demonstrate the issue? If yes, better to include it
>> as a test
>> case.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joey
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Yangfei (Felix) <felix.y...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We find that the VALLDI mode iterator used in *aarch64_simd_ld1r<mode>
>> pattern is not appropriate.
>> > The reason is that it's impossible to get a new operand of DImode by
>> vec_duplicating an operand of the same mode.
>> > So this patch just excludes the DImode and uses VALL instead.
>> > Reg-tested for aarch64-linux-gnu with QEMU. OK for the trunk?
>> >
>> >
>> > Index: gcc/ChangeLog
>> >
>> =============================================================
>> ======
>> > --- gcc/ChangeLog (revision 217394)
>> > +++ gcc/ChangeLog (working copy)
>> > @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
>> > +2014-11-13 Felix Yang <felix.y...@huawei.com>
>> > + Jiji Jiang <jiangj...@huawei.com>
>> > +
>> > + * config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (*aarch64_simd_ld1r<mode>):
>> Use
>> > + VALL mode iterator instead of VALLDI.
>> > +
>> > 2014-11-11 Andrew Pinski <apin...@cavium.com>
>> >
>> > Bug target/61997
>> > Index: gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
>> >
>> =============================================================
>> ======
>> > --- gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (revision 217394)
>> > +++ gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (working copy)
>> > @@ -4936,8 +4936,8 @@
>> > })
>> >
>> > (define_insn "*aarch64_simd_ld1r<mode>"
>> > - [(set (match_operand:VALLDI 0 "register_operand" "=w")
>> > - (vec_duplicate:VALLDI
>> > + [(set (match_operand:VALL 0 "register_operand" "=w")
>> > + (vec_duplicate:VALL
>> > (match_operand:<VEL> 1 "aarch64_simd_struct_operand"
>> "Utv")))]
>> > "TARGET_SIMD"
>> > "ld1r\\t{%0.<Vtype>}, %1"
