On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:37:41AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> Please let me know if the patch looks OK for the GCC 7 branch.
I think it looks fine. But it should go to trunk, first?
Okay for trunk, and for the branches after a suitable delay. Thanks!
Segher
> 2018-04-17 Carl Love
GCC Maintainers:
I have addressed Segher's concerns regarding the range checking of the
argument. The following is the updated patch.
The regression testing for the patch was done on GCC mainline on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 8 LE)
with no regressions. Additional hand
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > But then the & ~0x1f test is not good either, it does not work for
> > values
> > -16..-1 ?
> >
> > You cannot handle signed and unsigned exactly the same for the test
> > for
> > allowed values.
> The test
>
> if (TREE_CODE (arg0)
On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 17:53 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 03:27:40PM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 16:54 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > > > diff --git
Hi!
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 03:27:40PM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 16:54 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > > b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > > index
On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 16:54 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > index a0c9b5c..855be43 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > +++
Hi Carl,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> index a0c9b5c..855be43 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> @@ -16576,8 +16576,9 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin
GCC Maintainers:
GCC revision 255549 implemented early gimple folding for the
vec_splat_s[8,16,32] builtins. However, as a consequence of the
implementation, we lost error checking for out-of-range values for the
expected vspltis[bhw] instructions. The result of not having the out-
of-range
