On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:28:54AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Yes, I am aware that ix86_binary_operator_ok (and corresponding
>> expander fixup) is way too complex for SSE patterns, but until AVX,
>> this function handled all patterns in an
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:28:54AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Yes, I am aware that ix86_binary_operator_ok (and corresponding
> expander fixup) is way too complex for SSE patterns, but until AVX,
> this function handled all patterns in an universal way. Please also
> note, that the intention of th
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:27:27PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > As this patch shows, we have tons of ix86_binary_operator_ok calls
>> > in sse.md patterns, but I believe
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:27:27PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > As this patch shows, we have tons of ix86_binary_operator_ok calls
> > in sse.md patterns, but I believe those are inappropriate in all these
> > spots, the function
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As this patch shows, we have tons of ix86_binary_operator_ok calls
> in sse.md patterns, but I believe those are inappropriate in all these
> spots, the function is for normal 2 operand binary instructions, where
> we require that if
Hi!
As this patch shows, we have tons of ix86_binary_operator_ok calls
in sse.md patterns, but I believe those are inappropriate in all these
spots, the function is for normal 2 operand binary instructions, where
we require that if one operand is memory, the destination is as well and
they match.
