tor lowering eventually turning them into scalar operations and
quite some patterns in match.pd applying to ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P.
> Revised patch below.
The revised patch is OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> > It would be also good to amend the RTL documentation.
> >
> > It would be ve
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 11:24 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> > > Okay, I see opinions will vary here. I was thinking about our immintrin.h
> > > which is partially implemented in terms of generic vectors. Imagine we
> > > extend UBSan to trap on
On Friday, 2 June 2023 11:24:23 CEST Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you consider a breaking change here. Is that the
> > > implied
> > > threat to use undefinedness for range deduction and other optimizations?
> >
> > Consider the stdx::simd implementation. It currently follows
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > Okay, I see opinions will vary here. I was thinking about our immintrin.h
> > which is partially implemented in terms of generic vectors. Imagine we
> > extend UBSan to trap on signed overflow for vector types. I expect that
> > will blow up on
On Friday, 2 June 2023 09:49:26 CEST Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > simd x = ...;
> > bool t = all_of(x < x + 1); // unconditionally true or not?
> >
> > I'd expect t to be unconditionally true. Because simd simply is a
> > data- parallel version of int.
>
> Okay, I see opinions will vary here. I
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 June 2023 20:25:14 CEST Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So yes, we probably should clarify the semantics to match the
> > > implementation (since we have two targets doing things differently
On Thursday, 1 June 2023 20:25:14 CEST Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So yes, we probably should clarify the semantics to match the
> > implementation (since we have two targets doing things differently
> > since forever we can only document it as UB) and
target defined) behavior in the
> GENERIC, GIMPLE and RTL ILs and what predicates eventually
> control that (like TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED). Maybe spread it over
> {gimple,generic,rtl}.texi, though gimple.texi is only about the representation
> and all semantics are shared and docu
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 4:49 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:36 PM Alexander Monakov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > I’d have to check the ISAs what
On Thu, 25 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:36 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > > I’d have to check the ISAs what they actually do here - it of course
> > > depends
> > > on RTL semantics as
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:50 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:36 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > > I’d have to check the ISAs what they actually do here - it of course
> > > depends
> > > on RTL
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:36 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > I’d have to check the ISAs what they actually do here - it of course depends
> > on RTL semantics as well but as you say those are not strictly defined here
> > either.
On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I’d have to check the ISAs what they actually do here - it of course depends
> on RTL semantics as well but as you say those are not strictly defined here
> either.
Plus, we can add the following executable test to the testsuite:
> Am 24.05.2023 um 16:21 schrieb Alexander Monakov :
>
>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:54 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
>>> wrote:
>>> Explicitly say that bitwise shifts for narrow types work similar to
>>> element-wise C shifts with
On Wed, 24 May 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:54 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Explicitly say that bitwise shifts for narrow types work similar to
> > element-wise C shifts with integer promotions, which coincides with
> > OpenCL semantics.
>
>
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:54 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Explicitly say that bitwise shifts for narrow types work similar to
> element-wise C shifts with integer promotions, which coincides with
> OpenCL semantics.
Do we need to clarify that v << w with v being a vector of
Explicitly say that bitwise shifts for narrow types work similar to
element-wise C shifts with integer promotions, which coincides with
OpenCL semantics.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/extend.texi (Vector Extensions): Clarify bitwise shift
semantics.
---
gcc/doc/extend.texi | 7 ++-
1
17 matches
Mail list logo
