subject:"\[ARM\] PR98435\: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor"

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-13 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 21:50, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:07 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 17:31, Christophe Lyon
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:51 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 14:49, Christophe Lyon
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via 
>> >> >> >> >> > Gcc-patches  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > expanding vector
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > constructor
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> >> &g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-09 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:07 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 17:31, Christophe Lyon
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:51 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 14:49, Christophe Lyon
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via
> Gcc-patches  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov <
> kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
> >> >> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> >> >> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> >> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc
> Patches  >> >> >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding vector
> >> >> >> >> >> > > constructor
> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> >> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon <
> christophe.l...@linaro.org>; gcc Patches
> >> >> >> >> >> > >  >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed
>

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-08 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 17:31, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:51 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 14:49, Christophe Lyon
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via 
>> >> >> >> > Gcc-patches  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> >> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding 
>> >> >> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> >> >> > > constructor
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> gcc Patches
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> expanding
>> >> >> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-06 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:51 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 14:49, Christophe Lyon
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via
> Gcc-patches  wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov <
> kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
> >> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> >> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches
>  >> >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding vector
> >> >> >> >> > > constructor
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ;
> gcc Patches
> >> >> >> >> > >  >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization
> in expanding
> >> >> >> >> > > vector
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> >> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> pratham

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 14:49, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches 
>> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches > >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding 
>> >> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> >> > > constructor
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Patches
>> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> expanding
>> >> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
>> >> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
>> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-06 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via
> Gcc-patches  wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov <
> kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > -Original Message-
> >> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> >> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> >> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches
>  >> >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> vector
> >> >> >> > > constructor
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> >> >> > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ;
> gcc Patches
> >> >> >> > >  >> >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> >> >> > > vector
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo
> Tkachov
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> >> >> > > vector
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> >> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 18:05, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches 
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov  
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > -Original Message-
>> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches > >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
>> >> >> > > constructor
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Patches
>> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> expanding
>> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Tkachov
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> expanding
>> >> >> > > vector
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-05 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> >> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> >> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  >> >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> vector
> >> >> > > constructor
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> >> > >  wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >> >> > > >  wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >> >> > > > > >  wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc
> Patches
> >> >> > >  >> >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> >> > > vector
> >> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
> >> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo
> Tkachov
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> >> > > vector
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> >> >> > > > > >>>> 
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> via Gcc-
> >> >> > > patches
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-05 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 20:52, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov  
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > -Original Message-
>> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches > >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
>> >> > > constructor
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> >> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
>> >> > > > >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
>> >> > > vector
>> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> expanding
>> >> > > vector
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
>> >> > > > > >>>> 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
>> >> > > patches
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
>> >> > > > > >&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-03 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:57 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -Original Message-
> >> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> >> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> >> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  >> > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >> > > constructor
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> > >  wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >> > > >  wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >> > > > > >  wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> >> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc
> Patches
> >> > >  >> > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> > > vector
> >> > > > > >>>> constructor
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> >> > > 
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <
> prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo
> Tkachov
> >> > > > > >>>>>> 
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> >> > > vector
> >> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> >> > > > > >>>> 
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via
> Gcc-
> >> > > patches
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> >> > > >

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-03 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 14:59, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches 
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
>> > > To: Christophe LYON 
>> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches > > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
>> > > constructor
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > >  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>> > > >  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
>> > > > > >  wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
>> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
>> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
>> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
>> > > > > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
>> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
>> > > vector
>> > > > > >>>> constructor
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
>> > > 
>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
>> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
>> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
>> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
>> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
>> > > > > >>>>>> 
>> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
>> > > vector
>> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
>> > > > > >>>> 
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
>> > > patches
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
>> > > > > >>>> abi=softfp
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being
>> >

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-08-03 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > > constructor
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > > >>>> -Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
> > >  > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > > vector
> > > > > >>>> constructor
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > 
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > > vector
> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
> > > patches
> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> > > > > >>>> abi=softfp
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being
> > > vectorized:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > &

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-06 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 11:28, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > Sent: 06 July 2021 10:25
> > To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > Cc: Christophe LYON ; gcc Patches  > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > constructor
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> > > > To: Christophe LYON 
> > > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  > > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > > > constructor
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> -Original Message-
> > > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
> > > >  > > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > > > vector
> > > > > > >>>> constructor
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > 
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> > expanding
> > > > vector
> > > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
> > > > patches
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > >

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-06 Thread Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches



> -Original Message-
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> Sent: 06 July 2021 10:25
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> Cc: Christophe LYON ; gcc Patches  patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> constructor
> 
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> > > To: Christophe LYON 
> > > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > > constructor
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message-
> > > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
> > >  > > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > > vector
> > > > > >>>> constructor
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > 
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in
> expanding
> > > vector
> > > > > >>>>>> constructor
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
> > > patches
> > > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -
> mfloat-
> > > > > >>>> abi=softfp
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being
> > > vectorized:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > > &

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:33, Kyrylo Tkachov  wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> > To: Christophe LYON 
> > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > constructor
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > >>>> -Original Message-----
> > > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
> >  > > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > vector
> > > > >>>> constructor
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> > 
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> > vector
> > > > >>>>>> constructor
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
> > patches
> > > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> > > > >>>> abi=softfp
> > > > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being
> > vectorized:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   adr r1, .L4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   mov r2,

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-06 Thread Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches



> -Original Message-
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> Sent: 06 July 2021 08:06
> To: Christophe LYON 
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; gcc Patches  patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> constructor
> 
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > >>>> -Original Message-
> > > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches
>  > > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> vector
> > > >>>> constructor
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov
> 
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding
> vector
> > > >>>>>> constructor
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-
> patches
> > > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > >>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > >>>>>>>>> }
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> > > >>>> abi=softfp
> > > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being
> vectorized:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > > >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > > >>>>>>>>>   mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   adr r1, .L4
> > > >>>>>>>>>   ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>   mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > >>>&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >>>> -Original Message-
> > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches  > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > >>>> constructor
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Original Message-
> > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > >>>>>> constructor
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >>>>>>  wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> #include 
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > >>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > >>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > >>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > >>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> > >>>> abi=softfp
> > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> > >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > >>>>>>>>>   mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>>   adr r1, .L4
> > >>>>>>>>>   ldrdr0, [r1]
> > >>>>>>>>>   mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>>   mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> > >>>>>> mode
> > >>>>>>>>> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > >>>>>>>>> mode
> > >>>>>>>>> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> > >>>> now
> > >>>>>> generates:
> > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > >>>>>>>>&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-07-01 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
 wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches  >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >>>> constructor
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >>>>>> constructor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #include 
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> >>>> abi=softfp
> >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> f1:
> >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>>>   mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>   adr r1, .L4
> >>>>>>>>>   ldrdr0, [r1]
> >>>>>>>>>   mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>   mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>>>   bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>>>   bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> >>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> >>>>>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> >>>> now
> >>>>>> generates:
> >>>>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>>>   vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>>>   vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>>>   bx  lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE
> >>>&g

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-30 Thread Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches




On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
 wrote:


On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches 
Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
constructor

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
wrote:



-Original Message-
From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
To: Christophe Lyon 
Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov

Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
constructor

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
 wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon



wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
 wrote:

Hi,
As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:

#include 

bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
{
return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
}

bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
{
return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
}

Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-

abi=softfp

-march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:

f1:
  vdup.16 d16, r0
  vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
  bx  lr

f2:
  mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
  adr r1, .L4
  ldrdr0, [r1]
  mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
  mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
  bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
  bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
  bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
  bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
  bx  lr

This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ

mode

iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
mode
to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler

now

generates:

f2:
  vdup.16 d16, r0
  vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
  bx  lr

However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am

not

sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE

has

only 128-bit vectors ?


I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in

neon.md.

Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and

MVE,

I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
in attached patch so
it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me

either.

ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
(attaching patch as text).


--- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
@@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
   )

   (define_expand "vec_init"
-  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
+  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
  (match_operand 1 "" "")]
 "TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
   {
+  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE

(operands[0])) != 16)

+FAIL;
 neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
 DONE;
   })

I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it in

the expander condition?

"TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (<

VDQ>mode) != 16)"
Is it OK to use mode ? Because using mode resulted in lot
of build errors.
Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
(mode) == 16 since
we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is 16 bytes ?
Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?

Yes, you're right.


Can't this be ARM_HAVE__ARITH like in most expanders in vec-common.md?

(maybe with a && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT if needed)

I wonder if this should be ARM_HAVE__LDST instead since we're
initializing the vector ?



Well, it really depends on which modes you want to enable.


Looks like your move VDQ -> VDQ adds V4BF, V8BF and DI.

Are they all OK for Neon?

They are not OK for MVE.

Ideally you could add testcases to cover to the supported and 
unsupported modes for both Neon and MVE.\


Before your patch, the expander is enabled for MVE for 64 bit modes 
(V8QI, V4HI, V2SI): what happens in this case? Does the compiler crash 
or is there something else preventing the match?



Thanks,


Christophe



Thanks,
Prathamesh


Christophe



Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill



Thanks,
Prathamesh

Thanks,
Kyrill


Thanks,
Prathamesh

Thanks,
Prathamesh

That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
ARM_HAVE__ARITH
and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)

Christophe


Thanks,
Prathamesh

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-29 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
 wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches  >> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >> constructor
> >>
> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> >>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >>>> To: Christophe Lyon 
> >>>> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >>>> 
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >>>> constructor
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> >> 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> >>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> #include 
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> >> abi=softfp
> >>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> f1:
> >>>>>>>  vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>  vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>  bx  lr
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>  mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>  adr r1, .L4
> >>>>>>>  ldrdr0, [r1]
> >>>>>>>  mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>  mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>  bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>  bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>  bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>  bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>  bx  lr
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> >>>> mode
> >>>>>>> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> >>>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> >> now
> >>>> generates:
> >>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>  vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>  vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>  bx  lr
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>> sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE
> >> has
> >>>>>>> only 128-bit vectors ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> >>>>>> vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in
> >> neon.md.
> >>>>> Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and
> >> MVE,
> >>>>> I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> >>>>> Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> >>>>> in attached patch so
> >>>>> it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> >>>>> Altho hard-coding

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-28 Thread Christophe LYON via Gcc-patches




On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:



-Original Message-
From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches 
Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
constructor

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
wrote:




-Original Message-
From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
To: Christophe Lyon 
Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov

Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
constructor

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
 wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon



wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
 wrote:

Hi,
As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:

#include 

bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
{
   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
}

bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
{
   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
}

Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-

abi=softfp

-march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:

f1:
 vdup.16 d16, r0
 vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
 bx  lr

f2:
 mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
 adr r1, .L4
 ldrdr0, [r1]
 mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
 mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
 bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
 bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
 bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
 bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
 bx  lr

This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ

mode

iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
mode
to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler

now

generates:

f2:
 vdup.16 d16, r0
 vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
 bx  lr

However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am

not

sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE

has

only 128-bit vectors ?


I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in

neon.md.

Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and

MVE,

I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
in attached patch so
it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me

either.

ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
(attaching patch as text).


--- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
@@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
  )

  (define_expand "vec_init"
-  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
+  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
 (match_operand 1 "" "")]
"TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
  {
+  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE

(operands[0])) != 16)

+FAIL;
neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
DONE;
  })

I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it in

the expander condition?

"TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (<

VDQ>mode) != 16)"
Is it OK to use mode ? Because using mode resulted in lot
of build errors.
Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
(mode) == 16 since
we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is 16 bytes ?
Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?

Yes, you're right.



Can't this be ARM_HAVE__ARITH like in most expanders in vec-common.md?

(maybe with a && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT if needed)


Christophe



Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill



Thanks,
Prathamesh

Thanks,
Kyrill


Thanks,
Prathamesh

Thanks,
Prathamesh

That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
ARM_HAVE__ARITH
and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)

Christophe


Thanks,
Prathamesh

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-28 Thread Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches



> -Original Message-
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov 
> Cc: Christophe Lyon ; gcc Patches  patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> constructor
> 
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > > Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > > To: Christophe Lyon 
> > > Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > 
> > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > > constructor
> > >
> > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #include 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> abi=softfp
> > > > > > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f1:
> > > > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > > > bx  lr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f2:
> > > > > > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > > > > adr r1, .L4
> > > > > > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > > > > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > > > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > > > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > > > > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > > > > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > > > > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > > > > bx  lr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> > > mode
> > > > > > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> now
> > > generates:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f2:
> > > > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > > > bx  lr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> > > not
> > > > > > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE
> has
> > > > > > only 128-bit vectors ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > > > > vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in
> neon.md.
> > > > Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and
> MVE,
> > > > I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> > > > Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> > > > in attached patch so
> > > > it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> > > > Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me
> either.
> > > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> > > (attaching patch as text).
> > >
> >
> > --- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> > +++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> > @@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
> >  )
> >
> >  (define_expand "vec_init"
> > -  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
> > +  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
> > (match_operand 1 "" "")]
> >"TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
> >  {
> > +  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE
> (operands[0])) != 16)
> > +FAIL;
> >neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
> >DONE;
> >  })
> >
> > I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
> > Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it 
> > in
> the expander condition?
> > "TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (<
> VDQ>mode) != 16)"
> Is it OK to use mode ? Because using mode resulted in lot
> of build errors.
> Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
> (mode) == 16 since
> we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is 16 bytes 
> ?
> Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?

Yes, you're right.
Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill


> 
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyrill
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > > > > vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > > > > ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> > > > > and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Christophe
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-28 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov  wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> > Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > To: Christophe Lyon 
> > Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > constructor
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > > >
> > > > > #include 
> > > > >
> > > > > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > {
> > > > >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > > {
> > > > >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> > > > > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > > > >
> > > > > f1:
> > > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > > bx  lr
> > > > >
> > > > > f2:
> > > > > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > > > adr r1, .L4
> > > > > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > > > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > > > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > > > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > > > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > > > bx  lr
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> > mode
> > > > > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > > > > mode
> > > > > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now
> > generates:
> > > > >
> > > > > f2:
> > > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > > bx  lr
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> > not
> > > > > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> > > > > only 128-bit vectors ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > > > vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.
> > > Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and MVE,
> > > I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> > > Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> > > in attached patch so
> > > it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> > > Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me either.
> > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> > (attaching patch as text).
> >
>
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> @@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
>  )
>
>  (define_expand "vec_init"
> -  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
> +  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
> (match_operand 1 "" "")]
>"TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
>  {
> +  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (operands[0])) != 16)
> +FAIL;
>neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
>DONE;
>  })
>
> I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
> Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it in 
> the expander condition?
> "TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (< VDQ>mode) != 16)"
Is it OK to use mode ? Because using mode resulted in lot
of build errors.
Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
(mode) == 16 since
we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is 16 bytes ?
Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > > >
> > > > That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > > > vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > > > ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> > > > and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> > > >
> > > > Christophe
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Prathamesh


pr98435-3.diff
Description: Binary data

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-24 Thread Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches



> -Original Message-
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni 
> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> To: Christophe Lyon 
> Cc: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> 
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> constructor
> 
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > >
> > > > #include 
> > > >
> > > > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > {
> > > >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > {
> > > >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> > > > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > > >
> > > > f1:
> > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > f2:
> > > > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > > adr r1, .L4
> > > > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> mode
> > > > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > > > mode
> > > > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now
> generates:
> > > >
> > > > f2:
> > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> not
> > > > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> > > > only 128-bit vectors ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > > vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.
> > Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and MVE,
> > I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> > Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> > in attached patch so
> > it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> > Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me either.
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> (attaching patch as text).
> 

--- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
@@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
 )
 
 (define_expand "vec_init"
-  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
+  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
(match_operand 1 "" "")]
   "TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
 {
+  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (operands[0])) != 16)
+FAIL;
   neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
   DONE;
 })

I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it in 
the expander condition?
"TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (< VDQ>mode) != 16)"

Thanks,
Kyrill

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > > vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > > ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> > > and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-21 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > > >
> > > > #include 
> > > >
> > > > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > {
> > > >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > > {
> > > >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> > > > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > > >
> > > > f1:
> > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > f2:
> > > > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > > adr r1, .L4
> > > > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ mode
> > > > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > > > mode
> > > > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now 
> > > > generates:
> > > >
> > > > f2:
> > > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > > bx  lr
> > > >
> > > > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am not
> > > > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> > > > only 128-bit vectors ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > > vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.
> > Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and MVE,
> > I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> > Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> > in attached patch so
> > it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> > Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me either.
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> (attaching patch as text).
ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572648.html

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > > vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > > ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> > > and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-14 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > >
> > > #include 
> > >
> > > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > {
> > >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > > }
> > >
> > > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > > {
> > >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > > }
> > >
> > > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> > > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > >
> > > f1:
> > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > bx  lr
> > >
> > > f2:
> > > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > > adr r1, .L4
> > > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > > bx  lr
> > >
> > > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ mode
> > > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > > mode
> > > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now 
> > > generates:
> > >
> > > f2:
> > > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > > bx  lr
> > >
> > > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am not
> > > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> > > only 128-bit vectors ?
> > >
> >
> > I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.
> Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and MVE,
> I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> in attached patch so
> it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me either.
ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
(attaching patch as text).

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> > and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
index 6a6573317cf..27dd672ca76 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
@@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
 )
 
 (define_expand "vec_init"
-  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
+  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
(match_operand 1 "" "")]
   "TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
 {
+  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (operands[0])) != 16)
+FAIL;
   neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
   DONE;
 })

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-09 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >
> > #include 
> >
> > bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > {
> >   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > }
> >
> > bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > {
> >   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > }
> >
> > Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> > -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> >
> > f1:
> > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > bx  lr
> >
> > f2:
> > mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> > adr r1, .L4
> > ldrdr0, [r1]
> > mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> > mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> > bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > bx  lr
> >
> > This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ mode
> > iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > mode
> > to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now 
> > generates:
> >
> > f2:
> > vdup.16 d16, r0
> > vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> > bx  lr
> >
> > However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am not
> > sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> > only 128-bit vectors ?
> >
>
> I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.
Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and MVE,
I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
in attached patch so
it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me either.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> ARM_HAVE__ARITH
> and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh


pr98435-2.diff
Description: Binary data

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-04 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
>
> #include 
>
> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> {
>   return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> }
>
> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> {
>   return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> }
>
> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
>
> f1:
> vdup.16 d16, r0
> vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> bx  lr
>
> f2:
> mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
> adr r1, .L4
> ldrdr0, [r1]
> mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
> mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
> bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> bx  lr
>
> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ mode
> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> mode
> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now generates:
>
> f2:
> vdup.16 d16, r0
> vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> bx  lr
>
> However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am not
> sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
> only 128-bit vectors ?
>

I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in neon.md.

That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
ARM_HAVE__ARITH
and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)

Christophe

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh

[ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

2021-06-04 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches

Hi,
As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:

#include 

bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
{
  return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
}

bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
{
  return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
}

Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
-march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:

f1:
vdup.16 d16, r0
vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
bx  lr

f2:
mov r3, r0  @ __bf16
adr r1, .L4
ldrdr0, [r1]
mov r2, r3  @ __bf16
mov ip, r3  @ __bf16
bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
bx  lr

This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ mode
iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
mode
to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler now generates:

f2:
vdup.16 d16, r0
vmovr0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
bx  lr

However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am not
sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE has
only 128-bit vectors ?

Thanks,
Prathamesh

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

RE: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

[ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector constructor

29 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information