https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34ed2b4593fa98b613632d0dde30b6ba3e7ecad9
commit r15-642-g34ed2b4593fa98b613632d0dde30b6ba3e7ecad9
Author: Pan Li
Date: Fri May 17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4dee347b3fe1982bab26485ff31cd039c9df010
commit r15-577-gd4dee347b3fe1982bab26485ff31cd039c9df010
Author: Pan Li
Date: Wed May 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52b0536710ff3f3ace72ab00ce9ef6c630cd1183
commit r15-576-g52b0536710ff3f3ace72ab00ce9ef6c630cd1183
Author: Pan Li
Date: Wed May 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #18 from Li Pan ---
Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, it was before expand. I will prepare one PATCH for this, and it should
target for gcc-15 I bet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #17 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #16)
> I have a try like below and finally have the Standard Name "SAT_ADD". Could
> you please help to double-check if my understanding is correct?
>
> Given below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #16 from Li Pan ---
I have a try like below and finally have the Standard Name "SAT_ADD". Could you
please help to double-check if my understanding is correct?
Given below example code below:
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #15 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #14)
> Awesome! Feel free to reach out if you need any help.
>
> It’s likely easier to start with add and sub and get things pipe cleaned and
> expand incrementally than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
Awesome! Feel free to reach out if you need any help.
It’s likely easier to start with add and sub and get things pipe cleaned and
expand incrementally than to try and do it all at once.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #13 from Li Pan ---
I'll try to understand it and make it happen recently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #11)
> Hi, Tamar.
>
> We are interested in supporting saturating and rounding.
Awesome!
>
> We may need to support scalar first.
>
> Do you have any suggestions ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, Tamar.
We are interested in supporting saturating and rounding.
We may need to support scalar first.
Do you have any suggestions ?
Or you are already working on it?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, Tamar.
We are interested in supporting saturating and rounding.
We may need to support scalar first.
Do you have any suggestions ?
Or you are already working on it?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
Ok. After investigation of LLVM:
Before loop vectorizer:
%cond12 = tail call i32 @llvm.usub.sat.i32(i32 %conv5, i32 %wsize)
%conv13 = trunc i32 %cond12 to i16
After loop vectorizer:
%10 = call <16 x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
Missing saturate vectorization causes RVV Clang 20% performance better than RVV
GCC during recent benchmark evaluation.
In coremark pro zip-test, I believe other targets should be the same.
I wonder how we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #7 from Li Pan ---
RISC-V backend reproduce code, build with "-march=rv64gcv_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs
--param=riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax -Ofast -ffast-math"
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
void AAA (uint16_t *x, uint16_t *y,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-May/236015.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-04 00:00:00 |2021-8-24
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com 2012-01-08
18:56:48 UTC ---
Note, this code appears in gzip and therefore IIRC in specCPU (in
deflate.c:fill_window). Although when compiling gzip myself with that code
embedded in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
21 matches
Mail list logo