https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d1c6e7038b0c281ac2678f2f615806a7aac9174
commit r13-1131-g8d1c6e7038b0c281ac2678f2f615806a7aac9174
Author: Haochen Gui
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
There are many patterns that use VEC_I, and not all have a V1TI variant
currently, so adding V1TI to it is not suitable for now. It is better to
add a new iterator for now.
This whole thing desperate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
HaoChen Gui changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> > As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
> > standard patterns in gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
> standard patterns in general, since we tend to find such missing cases more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
When is the lowering done currently? Only for the ops that have no other way
of doing, and things are merged back to an __int128 immediately after that?
If that is what is going on, then that is unfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation of
standard patterns in general, since we tend to find such missing cases more
often than I'd like...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
FWIW, I think the vector lowering pass is reasonable. These things always look
horrible in isolation, but the lowering allows more optimization when the
target doesn't really support the data type.
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never* split data. It
> > simply does not know enough about the machine and what the eventual
> > machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw:
> mfvsrd 9,34
> mfvsrld 8,34
> mfvsrd 11,35
> mfvsrld 10,35
> li 7,1
> cmpd 0,9,11
> bgt 0,.L2
> cmpld 0,9,11
> beq 0,.L5
> .L3:
> li 7,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> Ah, now I see. Thanks!
>
> Power10 has some new 128-bit insns (and p9 and p8 did before, too).
>
> I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, now I see. Thanks!
Power10 has some new 128-bit insns (and p9 and p8 did before, too).
I still think it would be best if Gimple did *never* split data. It
simply does not know enough about the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
At first glance, this is probably because vector.md's definition of
vec_cmp isn't defined for V1TImode. Probably needs to be changed
to use VEC_IP rather than VEC_I and implement all the cases for 128-bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Above was compiled with -O2 -mcpu=power10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sure. Consider:
#include
vector bool __int128
foo (vector signed __int128 a, vector signed __int128 b)
{
return vec_cmpgt (a, b);
}
With gimple folding we emulate in 64-bit mode:
mfvsrd 9,34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you maybe have some simple example (of what we generate, and what you say
it should be)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103316
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
19 matches
Mail list logo
