2015-11-10 17:46 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2015-11-10 15:33 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> I tried it but 256-bit precision integer type is not yet supported. >>> >>> What's the symptom? The compare cannot be expanded? Just add a pattern >>> then. >>> After all we have modes up to XImode. >> >> I suppose problem may be in: >> >> gcc/config/i386/i386-modes.def:#define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT (128) >> >> which doesn't allow to create constants of bigger size. Changing it >> to maximum vector size (512) would mean we increase wide_int structure >> size significantly. New patterns are probably also needed. > > Yes, new patterns are needed but wide-int should be fine (we only need to > create > a literal zero AFACS). The "new pattern" would be equality/inequality > against zero > compares only.
Currently 256bit integer creation fails because wide_int for max and min values cannot be created. It is fixed by increasing MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT, but it increases WIDE_INT_MAX_ELTS and thus increases wide_int structure. If we use 512 for MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT then wide_int structure would grow by 48 bytes (16 bytes if use 256 for MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT). Is it OK for such narrow usage? Ilya > > Richard. > >> Ilya >> >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>>> Yuri. >>>> >>>>
