Which means the check should probably be either a) more complicated to be tight, or b) loosened to where Hans's patch is going.
-eric On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Yarr. > > -eric > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> wrote: >> I didn’t know ‘x’ can also mean 256-bit ‘ymm’ registers. Is this legal only >> if the target supports avx? >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You could probably create a 512-byte data structure to get it to fail >>> as well. (Though the explicit no-error is nice too, thanks) >>> >>> -eric >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + case 'x': >>>>>> + case 'f': >>>>>> + case 't': >>>>>> + case 'u': >>>>>> + return Size <= 128; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hans pointed out that you'll have problems here with _m256 and wanting an >>>>> avx register. There is, afaict, no separate constraint for "gimme an avx >>>>> register" that's different from SSE registers. There is the 'v' constraint >>>>> which works for avx 512 (evex encoded) registers. >>>> >>>> How about the attached patch? >>>> >>>> - Hans >> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
