On 2012-06-11 08:46, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > I will also point out that this implementation actually makes > things worse at -O0 given we don't constant propagate the mask into > the VEC_PERM_EXPR which is actually a regression compared to the > current state of the art (yes at O0 but I'm sure someone somewhere > will care about that.)
Is there any good reason to generate the _maskN variables,
rather than using the { } constant in the __builtin_shuffle
call directly?
r~
