From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
Hi, Richard. I fix the order as you suggeted.
Before this patch, the order is {len,mask,bias}.
Now, after this patch, the order becomes {len,bias,mask}.
Since you said we should not need 'internal_fn_bias_index', the bias index
should always be the len index + 1.
I notice L
Hi Juzhe,
when changing the argument order for LEN_LOAD/LEN_STORE, you will also
need to adjust rs6000's and s390's expanders.
Regards
Robin
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai writes:
> From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
>
> Hi, Richard. I fix the order as you suggeted.
>
> Before this patch, the order is {len,mask,bias}.
>
> Now, after this patch, the order becomes {len,bias,mask}.
>
> Since you said we should not need 'internal_fn_bias_index', the bias index
> s
> Similar to LEN_MASK_LOAD/STORE, their orders are consistent now after
> this patch.
Ah right, apologies.
Regards
Robin
: [PATCH V2] Middle-end: Change order of
LEN_MASK_LOAD/LEN_MASK_STORE arguments
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai writes:
> From: Ju-Zhe Zhong
>
> Hi, Richard. I fix the order as you suggeted.
>
> Before this patch, the order is {len,mask,bias}.
>
> Now, after this patch, the order b
to be adjusted.
I have already tested len_load/len_store optab.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-07-03 17:17
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; richard.sandiford; rguenther; linkw; krebbel
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Middle-end: Change order of
LEN_MASK_LOAD/LEN_MASK_ST
LEN_MASK_LOAD/STORE, their orders are consistent now after this
patch.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-07-03 17:17
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; richard.sandiford; rguenther; linkw; krebbel
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Middle-end: Change order of
LEN_MASK_LOAD
