public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/100085] Bad code for union transfer from __float128 to vector types
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:28:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-100085-4-u4NBArALme@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-100085-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085

--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We *have* TImode already, but most 128-bit scalars currently use V1TImode.
This often leads to reduced performance because that is not a scalar mode,
does not get all optimisations we have generically for all other integer
scalars.  We have to do a lot of it manually, which is a lot of (combine)
patterns, and we still miss almost all cases.

I am not saying we should remove V1TImode.  I am saying we want to use
plain TImode for scalars, on newer cpus.  On p8 we had V1TImode so that
we could reduce the traffic between the vector register files and the
GPR register file, because that was very costly on p8 (mtvsr* and mfvsr*
were 5 cycles, and mtvsrdd and mfvsrld didn't even exist yet).

Using V1TImode for scalars on p8 was a pretty big win.  It should be a win
again to use TImode on later cpus though.

> And I have grave reservations about the vague plans of small/fringe minority to 
> subset the PowerISA for their convenience.

I don't have reservations about that.  Instead, I battle that with all I can.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-06-11 20:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-14 18:19 [Bug rtl-optimization/100085] New: " munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-14 18:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/100085] " munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-15  6:59 ` [Bug target/100085] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-15 18:41 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-16 20:30 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-29 15:04 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-30 19:52 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-24  6:41 ` luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-24 21:49 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-02  8:27 ` luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09  5:13 ` luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09 21:35 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-09 22:08 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-10 15:00 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-11 20:28 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-01-14 17:17 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-24 20:48 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-24 20:53 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-24 21:17 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-24 21:22 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-24 21:26 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 15:31 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 22:57 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-26 16:22 ` munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-100085-4-u4NBArALme@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).