From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81387 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2019 10:13:39 -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 81379 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2019 10:13:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:13:38 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444BF300A23F; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-200.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.200]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E09995D6A0; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x79ADYpR021001; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:13:34 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x79ADVlh021000; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:13:31 +0200 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:26:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: Uros Bizjak , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC][x86] Fix PR91154, add SImode smax, allow SImode add in SSE regs Message-ID: <20190809101331.GX2726@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20190805125358.GR2726@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00616.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:25:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > 0.65 │1e0: vpxor %xmm0,%xmm0,%xmm0 > 0.32 │ vpmaxs -0x10(%rsp),%xmm0,%xmm0 > 40.45 │ vmovd %xmm0,%eax > 2.45 │ imul %r8d,%eax Shouldn't we hoist the vpxor before the loop? Is it STV being done too late that we don't do that anymore? Couldn't e.g. STV itself detect that and put the clearing instruction before the loop instead of right before the minmax? Jakub