On 13 November 2014 06:14, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi,
We find that the VALLDI mode iterator used in *aarch64_simd_ld1rmode
pattern is not appropriate.
The reason is that it's impossible to get a new operand of DImode by
vec_duplicating an operand of the same
On 13 November 2014 06:14, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi,
We find that the VALLDI mode iterator used in *aarch64_simd_ld1rmode
pattern is not appropriate.
The reason is that it's impossible to get a new operand of DImode by
vec_duplicating an operand of the same mode.
Is there a case or PR to demonstrate the issue? If yes, better to
include it as a test case.
Thanks,
Joey
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi,
We find that the VALLDI mode iterator used in *aarch64_simd_ld1rmode
pattern is not appropriate.
No, we noticed this issue when improving the vld1(q?)_dup intrinsics. Thanks.
Is there a case or PR to demonstrate the issue? If yes, better to include it
as a test
case.
Thanks,
Joey
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com
wrote:
Hi,
We find
Can a new case be rewritten then?
- Joey
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com wrote:
No, we noticed this issue when improving the vld1(q?)_dup intrinsics. Thanks.
Is there a case or PR to demonstrate the issue? If yes, better to include it
as a test
Hmm, I don't think so.
The pattern *aarch64_simd_ld1rmode is used for pure matching, and GCC will
never generate a pattern as follows:
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 register_operand =w)
(vec_duplicate:DI
(match_operand:DI 1 aarch64_simd_struct_operand Utv)))]
Can a new
Hi,
We find that the VALLDI mode iterator used in *aarch64_simd_ld1rmode
pattern is not appropriate.
The reason is that it's impossible to get a new operand of DImode by
vec_duplicating an operand of the same mode.
So this patch just excludes the DImode and uses VALL instead.
