On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:00:27AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> >> Can you add a few testcases?
>>> >
>>> > Isn't it already covered by gcc.dg/torture/vshuf* ?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I didn't see them fail on my machines today.
>>
>> Those are executable testcases, those better should not fail.
>> The patch just improved code generation and the testcases test
>> if the improved code generation works well.
>> Did you mean some scan-assembler test that verifies the better code
>> generation? Guess it is possible, though fragile.
>
> I think that existing executable testcases adequately cover the
> functionality of the patch.
>
> The patch is OK.
BTW, the ChangeLog is missing.
index ca5d720..6252e7e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
@@ -10678,7 +10678,7 @@
(V8SF "TARGET_AVX2") (V4DF "TARGET_AVX2")
(V16SF "TARGET_AVX512F") (V8DF "TARGET_AVX512F")
(V16SI "TARGET_AVX512F") (V8DI "TARGET_AVX512F")
- (V32HI "TARGET_AVX512BW")])
+ (V32HI "TARGET_AVX512BW") (V64QI "TARGET_AVX512VBMI")])
I don't think change for VBMI target belongs in this patch.
Uros.
