On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:40:48 GMT, Jie Fu <ji...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The compiler can get the real type info from `Op_NegVI` that can also handle
>> the `BYTE ` and `SHORT ` basic type. I just don't want to add more new IRs
>> which also need more match rules in the ad files.
>>
>>> Is there any performance drop for byte/short negation operation if both of
>>> them are handled as a NegVI vector?
>>
>> From the benchmark results I showed in the commit message, I didn't see not
>> any performance drop for byte/short. Thanks!
>
>> The compiler can get the real type info from `Op_NegVI` that can also handle
>> the `BYTE ` and `SHORT ` basic type. I just don't want to add more new IRs
>> which also need more match rules in the ad files.
>>
>> > Is there any performance drop for byte/short negation operation if both of
>> > them are handled as a NegVI vector?
>>
>> From the benchmark results I showed in the commit message, I didn't see not
>> any performance drop for byte/short. Thanks!
>
> There seems no vectorized negation instructions for {byte, short, int, long}
> on x86, so this should be fine on x86.
> I tested the patch on x86 and the performance number looks good.
Thanks for doing this! Yeah, I think the performance for masked negation
operations might improve on non avx-512 systems.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7782
