On 2021-03-10 5:25 a.m., Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 19/02/2021 15:05, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2021-02-19 5:53 a.m., Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
This patch makes sure that allocno copies are not created for
unordered modes. The testcases in the PR highlighted a case where an
On 19/02/2021 15:05, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2021-02-19 5:53 a.m., Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
This patch makes sure that allocno copies are not created for
unordered modes. The testcases in the PR highlighted a case where an
allocno copy was being created for:
(insn 121 120 123
Hi Alex,
On 22/02/2021 10:20, Alex Coplan wrote:
For the testcase, you might want to use the one I posted most recently:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98791#c3
which avoids the dependency on the aarch64-autovec-preference param
(which is in GCC 11 only) as this will simplify
Hi Andre,
Thanks for fixing this.
On 19/02/2021 10:53, Andre Vieira (lists) via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch makes sure that allocno copies are not created for unordered
> modes. The testcases in the PR highlighted a case where an allocno copy was
> being created for:
> (insn 121 120
On 2021-02-19 5:53 a.m., Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
This patch makes sure that allocno copies are not created for
unordered modes. The testcases in the PR highlighted a case where an
allocno copy was being created for:
(insn 121 120 123 11 (parallel [
(set (reg:VNx2QI 217)
Hi,
This patch makes sure that allocno copies are not created for unordered
modes. The testcases in the PR highlighted a case where an allocno copy
was being created for:
(insn 121 120 123 11 (parallel [
(set (reg:VNx2QI 217)
(vec_duplicate:VNx2QI (subreg/s/v:QI
