On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 19:44, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch fixes crashes with invalid attributes. Arguably it could
> make sense to assert seen_error() too.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk = GCC 13?
>
> PR c++/96637
>
>
On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 18:14, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 17:27, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > The attached patch adds anot
On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 11:50, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> When facing multiple PHI defs and one feeding the other we can
> postpone processing uses of one and thus can proceed.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
>
> 2022-05-20 Richard Biener
>
>
On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 21:21, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 19:22, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
Hi Richard,
The attached patch addresses formatting nits for affected targets.
Tested with make all-gcc stage1 (except for gcn).
Sorry if this sounds like a naive question, but what target triplet
should I use to build gcn port ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 17:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch adds another parameter machine_mode op_mode to
> > vec_perm_const
> > hook to specify mode of input operands. The motivation for doing this
>
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
Unfortunately, I am not sure how to cross test this patch.
make all-gcc stage-1 seems to build fine.
Is it OK to commit
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
Unfortunately, I am not sure how to cross test this patch.
make all-gcc stage-1 seems to build fine.
Is it OK to commit
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
Unfortunately, I am not sure how to cross test this patch.
make all-gcc stage-1 seems to build fine.
Is it OK to commit
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
Unfortunately, I am not sure how to cross test this patch.
make all-gcc stage-1 seems to build fine.
Is it OK to commit
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
OK to commit if bootstrap+test passes ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
Bootstrapped+tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For rationale, please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595128.html
OK to commit if bootstrap+test passes ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc b/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc
Hi,
The attached patch adjusts vec_perm_const hook to accommodate the new parameter.
For now, it bails out if vmode != op_mode, in follow-up patch to
PR96463, I will add dup
as exception.
Bootstrapped+tested on aarch64-linux-gnu.
Does it look OK ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git
Hi,
The attached patch adds another parameter machine_mode op_mode to vec_perm_const
hook to specify mode of input operands. The motivation for doing this
is PR96463,
where we create vec_perm_expr of the form:
lhs = vec_perm_expr
where lhs and rhs have different vector types but same element type
On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:44, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:00, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-built
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> > index c24c0548724..1ef4ea2087b 100644
> > --- a/
On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 19:22, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 19:12, Richard Sandiford
>
On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 19:12, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >&g
On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 19:12, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 15:54, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 17:03, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > Hi,
> > > The patch folds:
> > > lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, -1, ...}, [0])
> > >
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 16:37, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch rearranges order of type-check for vec_perm_expr
> > and relaxes type checking for
> > lhs = vec_perm_expr
> >
> > when:
> >
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 17:03, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The patch folds:
> > lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, -1, ...}, [0])
> > into:
> > lhs = vec_perm_expr
> > and expands above vec_perm_expr using aarch64_expand_s
Hi,
The attached patch rearranges order of type-check for vec_perm_expr
and relaxes type checking for
lhs = vec_perm_expr
when:
rhs1 == rhs2,
lhs is variable length vector,
rhs1 is fixed length vector,
TREE_TYPE (lhs) == TREE_TYPE (rhs1)
I am not sure tho if this check is correct ? My intent was
Hi,
The patch folds:
lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, -1, ...}, [0])
into:
lhs = vec_perm_expr
and expands above vec_perm_expr using aarch64_expand_sve_dupq.
With patch, for following test:
#include
#include
svint32_t
foo (int32x4_t x)
{
return svld1rq (svptrue_b8 (), [0]);
}
it generates following
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 19:08, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 23:11, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> > I have attached a
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 23:11, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > I have attached a WIP untested patch for PR96463.
> > IIUC, the PR suggests to transform
> > lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ...}, [0])
> > into:
> > l
Hi Richard,
I have attached a WIP untested patch for PR96463.
IIUC, the PR suggests to transform
lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ...}, [0])
into:
lhs = vec_perm_expr
if v is vector of 4 elements, and each element is 32 bits on little
endian target ?
I am sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but I
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 03:42, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 12:33 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 at 02:07, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch adds two new attributes. The followup pat
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 at 02:07, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This patch adds two new attributes. The followup patch makes use of
> the attributes in -fanalyzer.
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
> * c-attribs.c (attr_noreturn_exclusions): Add
> "returns_zero_on_failure" and
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 at 02:00, Seija K. via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/terminals.c b/gcc/ada/terminals.c
> index a2dd4895d48..25d9acda752 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/terminals.c
> +++ b/gcc/ada/terminals.c
> @@ -609,8 +609,7 @@ __gnat_setup_communication (struct TTY_Process**
>
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 01:12, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> Avoid going through another folding cycle and use the ignore flag to
> directly transform BUILT_IN_STPCPY_CHK to BUILT_IN_STRCPY when set,
> likewise for BUILT_IN_STPNCPY_CHK to BUILT_IN_STPNCPY.
>
> Dump the transformation in dump_file
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 20:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 14:19, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:05, Richard Sandiford
&g
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 16:42, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch removes redundant check for number of loops in
> > pass_vectorize::execute,
> &
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 23:24, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch introduces a helper function build_debug_expr_decl to build
> DEBUG_EXPR_DECL tree nodes in the most common way and replaces with a
> call of this function all code pieces which build such a DECL itself
> and sets its mode
Hi,
The attached patch removes redundant check for number of loops in
pass_vectorize::execute,
since it only calls vectorize_loops, and in vectorize_loops, we
immediately bail out if no loops are present:
vect_loops_num = number_of_loops (cfun);
/* Bail out if there are no loops. */
if
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 14:19, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:05, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:58, Richard Sandiford
&g
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 21:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/28/21 2:59 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:41, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:05, Richard Sandiford
> >> w
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:41, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:05, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:58, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >&
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > &g
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:05, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:58, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > The attache
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> >
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:58, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch emits a more verbose diagnostic for target attribute that
> > is an architecture extension needing a leading '+'.
> >
> > For the fol
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:32, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch removes "-mcpu=generic+sve" from dg-options,
> > because it conflicts
> > with -march=armv8.3-a+sve, and resulted in:
> >
> >
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > &g
Hi,
The attached patch removes "-mcpu=generic+sve" from dg-options,
because it conflicts
with -march=armv8.3-a+sve, and resulted in:
cc1: warning: switch '-mcpu=generic+sve' conflicts with
'-march=armv8.3-a+sve' switch^M
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pr93183.c (test for excess errors)
Excess
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ri
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> > As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
> > to match.pd:
> > erfc(x) --> 1 - erf(x) if canonicalize_mat
Hi,
The attached patch emits a more verbose diagnostic for target attribute that
is an architecture extension needing a leading '+'.
For the following test,
void calculate(void) __attribute__ ((__target__ ("sve")));
With patch, the compiler now emits:
102376.c:1:1: error: arch extension ‘sve’
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 14:34, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_4.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_4.c
> > index 4604365fbef..cedc5b7c549 100644
> >
Hi Richard,
As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
to match.pd:
erfc(x) --> 1 - erf(x) if canonicalize_math_p() and,
1 - erf(x) --> erfc(x) if !canonicalize_math_p().
This works to remove call to erfc for the following test:
double f(double x)
{
double g(double,
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 13:26, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 20:42, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 21:19, Richard Sandiford
&
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 20:42, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 21:19, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for looking at this.
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >&g
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 21:19, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >
> > typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
> >
> > sta
Hi,
As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
static inline uint8_t
x264_clip_uint8(uint8_t x)
{
uint8_t t = -x;
uint8_t t1 = x & ~63;
return (t1 != 0) ? t : x;
}
void
mc_weight(uint8_t *restrict dst, uint8_t *restrict src, int n)
{
for (int x = 0;
Hi,
In gimple_expand_vec_cond_expr:
icode = get_vcond_icode (mode, cmp_op_mode, unsignedp);
if (icode == CODE_FOR_nothing)
{
if (tcode == LT_EXPR
&& op0a == op0)
{
/* A VEC_COND_EXPR condition could be folded from EQ_EXPR/NE_EXPR
into a
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:38, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> As observed by Jakub in comment #2 of PR 98865, the expression -(a>>63)
> is optimized in GENERIC but not in GIMPLE. Investigating further it
> turns out that this is one of a few transformations performed by
> fold_negate_expr in
On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 14:32, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:17 AM Kyrylo Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > Sent: 24 August 2021 09:01
>> >
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarn
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:37, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > The attached pa
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 11:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 19:04, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:54 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 19:04, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:54 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:37, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
> > to corresponding vdup_n intrinsic an
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Pratham
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
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > Sent: 24 June 2021 12
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 18:23, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 2:34 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 16:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Chris
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
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 a
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
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
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > This patch replaces built
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 19:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
> to corresponding vdup_n intrinsic and removes entry for vld1_dup from
> arm_neon_builtins.def.
> Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabi
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:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Origi
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 14:57, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
> Hi Prathamesh,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Sent: 26 July 2021 22:24
> > To: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > ; Richard Earnshaw
> >
> > Subject:
Hi,
The attached patch replaces builtins in vld1_dup intrinsics with call
to corresponding vdup_n intrinsic and removes entry for vld1_dup from
arm_neon_builtins.def.
Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/66791
*
:
ldrdr0, [r0]
bx lr
I assume the code-gen after patch is correct, since it loads two
consecutive words from [r0] into r0 and r1 ?
Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
OK to commit ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2021-07-27 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR target/66791
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 at 16:03, Ankur Saini via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Here is the new patch after fixing all the issues pointed out in the previous
> version.
Just a nitpick:
+/* call_string::element_t's inequality operator. */
+bool
+call_string::element_t::operator!= (const
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 15:02, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2021 08:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 20:29, Richard Earnshaw
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22/07/2021 14:47, Prathamesh Kul
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 20:29, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/07/2021 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 17:28, Richard Earnshaw
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22/07/2021 12:32, P
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 17:28, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/07/2021 12:32, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 16:03, Richard Earnshaw
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22/07/2021 08:45, Prathamesh Kulkar
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 16:03, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/07/2021 08:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch removes calls to builtins from vshl_n intrinsics,
> > and replacing them
> > with left shift opera
Hi,
The attached patch removes calls to builtins from vshl_n intrinsics,
and replacing them
with left shift operator. The patch passes bootstrap+test on
arm-linux-gnueabihf.
Altho, I noticed, that the patch causes 3 extra registers to spill
using << instead
of the builtin for vshl_n.c. Could that
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 16:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prathamesh,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:25 AM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> Hi Prathamesh,
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:25 AM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> > Se
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > This patch replaces builtins with __a * __b for signed variants of
> > vmul_n intrinsics.
> > As discussed earlier, the
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This patch replaces builtins with __a * __b for signed variants of
> vmul_n intrinsics.
> As discussed earlier, the patch has issue if __a * __b overflows, and
> whether we wish to leave
> that as UB.
ping
ht
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>
> &
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:
> >
Hi,
This patch replaces builtins with __a * __b for signed variants of
vmul_n intrinsics.
As discussed earlier, the patch has issue if __a * __b overflows, and
whether we wish to leave
that as UB.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h
index
Hi Kyrill,
I assume this patch is OK to commit after bootstrap+testing ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h
index f42a15f7912..41b596b5fc6 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h
@@ -8384,21 +8384,25 @@
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:
> >>>&
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 14:00, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > Sent: 29 June 2021 08:21
> > To: gcc Patches ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR66791: Gate comparison in vca intri
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 Tkach
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 14:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 16:01, Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 15:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch gates abs(__a) cmp abs(__b) for vca intrinsics on
> __FAST_MATH__. I moved vabs intrinsics before vcage_f32 since vca
> intrinsics use those.
> Bootstrapped+tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>
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: [AR
, and posted a fix for it here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572648.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2021-06-24 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR target/66791
* gcc/config/arm/arm_neon.h (vdup_n_s8): Replace call to builtin
with constructor.
(vdup_n_s16): Likewise
201 - 300 of 988 matches
Mail list logo
