On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 11:06, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe
>
> On 7/8/19 10:01 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch fixes PR 91060 where the lane ordering was no longer the
> > right one (GCC's vs architecture's).
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > Thanks to both Richards for most of the debugging!
>
> Thank you to all for tracking this down.
>
> >
> > Christophe
>
>
> pr91060.patch.txt
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> index 820502a..4c7b5a8 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> @@ -12471,7 +12471,7 @@ neon_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals)
> if (n_var == 1)
> {
> rtx copy = copy_rtx (vals);
> - rtx index = GEN_INT (one_var);
> + rtx index = GEN_INT (1 << one_var);
>
> /* Load constant part of vector, substitute neighboring value for
> varying element. */
> @@ -12483,31 +12483,31 @@ neon_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals)
> switch (mode)
> {
> case E_V8QImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev8qi (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv8qi_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V16QImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev16qi (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv16qi_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V4HImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev4hi (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv4hi_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V8HImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev8hi (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv8hi_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V2SImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev2si (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv2si_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V4SImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev4si (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv4si_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V2SFmode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev2sf (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv2sf_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V4SFmode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev4sf (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv4sf_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> case E_V2DImode:
> - emit_insn (gen_neon_vset_lanev2di (target, x, target, index));
> + emit_insn (gen_vec_setv2di_internal (target, x, index, target));
> break;
> default:
> gcc_unreachable ();
>
>
> Can we take the opportunity here to remove that switch statement and use the
> parametrised names machinery:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Parameterized-Names.html#Parameterized-Names
>
> so that we can instead have one call to gen_vec_setv8hi_internal (mode,
> target, x, merge_mask, target) or something.
Yes, that's what Richard posted in bugzilla, it's much nicer indeed.
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
