From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52474 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2015 09:50:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 52446 invoked by uid 89); 4 Sep 2015 09:50:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com Received: from fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:50:05 +0000 Received: from arm.com (e107456-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.14]) by cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t849o1rZ029206; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:50:01 +0100 Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:54:00 -0000 From: James Greenhalgh To: Alan Lawrence Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15][AArch64] Add vcvt(_high)?_f32_f16 intrinsics, with BE RTL fix Message-ID: <20150904095000.GA18679@arm.com> References: <20150729132542.GA25688@arm.com> <1440499622-24989-1-git-send-email-alan.lawrence@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1440499622-24989-1-git-send-email-alan.lawrence@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:47:02AM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: > James Greenhalgh wrote: > >> > >> - VAR1 (UNOP, vec_unpacks_hi_, 10, v4sf) > >> + VAR2 (UNOP, vec_unpacks_hi_, 10, v4sf, v8hf) > > > > Should this not use the appropriate "BUILTIN_..." iterator? > > Indeed; BUILTIN_VQ_HSF it is. > > >> VAR1 (BINOP, float_truncate_hi_, 0, v4sf) > >> VAR1 (BINOP, float_truncate_hi_, 0, v8hf) > > I could also use BUILTIN_VQ_HSF here (these two were added in a previous > patch, before the VQ_HSF iterator was introduced). However, that goes against > the principle that we should use the same iterator as the pattern (the > pattern uses the attribute of the VDF iterator), so I'm not sure > whether that would be preferable (i.e. as a separate patch)? > > >> - VAR1 (UNOP, float_extend_lo_, 0, v2df) > >> + VAR2 (UNOP, float_extend_lo_, 0, v2df, v4sf) > > > > Likewise. > > Similarly, the required iterator does not exist, as float_extend_lo_ is named > after the attribute of the VDF iterator. The nearest equivalents I can > see use two VAR1's rather than a VAR2, so I've updated the patch to do that too. > > OK with those two changes? (patch attached and bootstrapped+check-gcc on > aarch64-none-linux-gnu) OK. Thanks, James