On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
+The elements of the input vectors are numbered from left to right across
+one or both of the vectors. Each element in the mask specifies a number
+of element from the input vector(s). Consider the following example.
It
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
Artem Shinkarov schrieb:
Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
ChangeLog
20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com
gcc/
* fold
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
The target has
2 = sizeof (short)
2 = sizeof (int)
4 = sizeof (long int)
8 = sizeof (long long int)
Could you fix that? I.e. parametrize
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Most likely we can. The question is what do we really want to check
with this test. My intention was to check that a programmer can
statically get
Hi, can anyone commit it please?
Richard?
Or may be Richard?
Thanks,
Artem.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for that, the vector comparison was submitted earlier. In the
attachment there is a new version of the patch against
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Hi, Richard
There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
apply the following
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03/2011 10:42 AM, David Miller wrote:
You might have a look at the Vector Shuffle thread, where we've been
trying to provide builtin-level access to this feature. We've not added
an rtx-level code for this because
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03/2011 11:40 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Currently if vec_perm_ok returns false, we do not try to use a new
vshuffle routine. Would it make sense to implement that? The only
potential problem I can see is a possible
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Hi, Richard
There is a problem with the testcases of the patch you have committed
for me. The code in every test-case is doubled. Could you please,
apply the following
Ping.
Richard, the patch in the attachment should be submitted asap. The
other problem could wait for a while.
Thanks,
Artem.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/03
Hi
Here is the patch tho fix bconstp-3.c failure in the bug 50607. The
failure was cause because the new parser routine did not consider
original_tree_code of the expression.
The patch is bootstrapped on x86-unknown-linux-gnu and is being tested.
Thanks,
Artem.
Index: c-parser.c
the warning.
(lower_vec_shuffle): Adjust to produce the warning.
* gcc/common.opt: New warning Wvector-operation-expanded.
* gcc/doc/invoke.texi: Document the wawning.
Ok?
Thanks,
Artem Shinkarov.
P.S. It is hard to write a reasonable testcase for the patch, because
one needs
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch tho fix bconstp-3.c failure in the bug 50607. The
failure was cause because the new parser routine did not consider
original_tree_code
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch tho fix bconstp-3
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Joseph, is it possible to commit the patch together with the space fixes?
You should not commit whitespace fixes to lines not otherwise modified by
a patch, except
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Joseph, is it possible to commit the patch together with the space fixes?
You should
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Successfully regtested on x86-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to the
mainline with the revision 179588.
ChangeLog:
2011-10-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Artem
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Richard
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Artem
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Committed with the revision 179807.
This caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--
H.J.
fix-performance-tests.diff
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
This patch fixed PR50704.
gcc/testsuite:
* gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-3
Hi
I would like to share some plans about improving the situation with
vector alignment tracking. First of all, I would like to start with a
well-known bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50716.
There are several aspects of the problem:
1) We would like to avoid the quiet
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Artem Shinkarov wrote
This is a patch that was approved a long time ago here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01833.html
but was never submitted.
2011-08-09 Artjoms Sinkarovs artyom.shinakr...@gmail.com
/gcc
* c-typeck.c (scalar_to_vector): New function. Try scalar to
vector conversion.
(stv_conv):
Sorry, I didn't attach the patch itself.
Here we go, in the attachment.
Artem.
Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 177589)
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -6526,18 +6526,25 @@ In C it is
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Here is a completed version of the vector comparison patch we
discussed a long time ago here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Artem
Hi
Several comments before the new version of the patch.
1) x != x
I am happy to adjust constant_boolean_node, but look at the code
around line 9074 in fold-const.c, you will see that x op x
elimination, even with adjusted constant_boolean_node, will look about
the same as my code. Because I need
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Several comments before the new version of the patch.
1) x != x
I am happy to adjust constant_boolean_node, but look
Yes. I think the backends need to handle optimizing this case,
esp. considering targets that do not have instructions to produce
a {-1,...}/{0,...} bitmask from a comparison but produce a vector
of condition codes. With using vec0 vec1 ? {-1...} : {0,...} for
mask = vec0 vec1; we avoid
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
+For the convenience condition in the vector conditional can be just a
+vector of signed integer type. In that case this vector is implicitly
+compared with vectors
Richard, I am trying to make sure that when vcond has {-1} and {0} it
does not trigger masking. Currently I am doing this:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 177665)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond.
I looked into it this problem for quite a while and found a solution.
Now the question if it could be done better.
First of all the problem:
If we represent any vector
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I had the problem with passing information about single variable
from expand_vec_cond_expr optab into ix86_expand_*_vcond
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard
I formalized an approach a little-bit, now it works without target
hooks, but some polishing is still required. I
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Artem
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Artem
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case it is simple to analyse that a is a comparison, but you
cannot embed the operations of a into VEC_COND_EXPR.
Sure, but if
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll just send you my current version. I'll be a little bit more specific.
The problem starts when you try to lower
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Artem
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:44 AM
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Artem
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
we discussed.
So I think it is a right time to do
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
we discussed.
So I think it is a right time to do
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem
Hi
Here is a patch with vector comparison only.
Comparison is expanded using VEC_COND_EXPR, conversions between the
different types inside the VEC_COND_EXPR are happening in optabs.c.
The comparison generally works, however, the x86 backend does not
recognize vectors of all 1s of type float and
it on a real hardware in
couple of days.
Thanks,
Artem Shinkarov.
Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 177758)
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -6553,6 +6553,32 @@ invoke undefined behavior at runtime
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This is a patch for the explicit vector shuffling we have discussed a
long time ago here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
The patch at the moment lacks of some examples, but mainly it works
fine for me. It would be nice if i386 gurus could look into the way I
am doing the expansion
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
1) Helper function for the pseudo-builtins.
In my case the builtin can have 2 or 3 arguments, and I think that I
expressed that in a pretty much short way without any
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
+ /* Avoid C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPRs inside VEC_SHUFFLE_EXPR. */
+ tmp = c_fully_fold (v0, false, maybe_const);
+ v0 = save_expr (tmp);
+ wrap = maybe_const;
I suppose
Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
ChangeLog
20011-09-06 Artjoms Sinkarovs artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com
gcc/
* fold-const.c (constant_boolean_node): Adjust the meaning
of boolean for vector types: true = {-1,..},
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a new version of the patch which considers the changes from
2011-09-02 Richard Guenther
ChangeLog
20011-09-06
56 matches
Mail list logo
