From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24454 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2011 09:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 24446 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2011 09:31:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_IW,TW_MX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com (HELO na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com) (74.125.149.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:30:58 +0000 Received: from SC-OWA01.marvell.com ([65.219.4.129]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob117.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTgRZTeqzza/zxeyv+nKU361drrZak5vS@postini.com; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:30:58 PDT Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA01.marvell.com ([10.93.76.21]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:26:07 -0700 From: Xinyu Qi To: Ramana Radhakrishnan , "Joseph S. Myers" CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com" Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:29:00 -0000 Subject: RE: [PATCH, ARM] iWMMXT maintenance Message-ID: <4737A960563B524DA805CA602BE04B306010C6F812@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01858.txt.bz2 Hi, Ramana and Joseph, Thank you for your reviewing! Sorry for the late response. Before I submit the new modified patch, I want to make something more speci= fic. > The -mwmmxt option is not acceptable as it stands today. IIRC the msimd > option was the plan long term when we talked about this last. It is a > good idea to revisit this now that we are finalizing the options / > multilib rework and the iwmmx port is getting some maintenance. >=20 So I decide to remove the option from my patch. I plan to submit three patches this time, one for iWMMXt intrinsic maintena= nce and WMMX pipeline description (no auto-vectorization or address fix con= taining), another for iWMMXt testsuite, and the third for doc update. Do you think it's better to split iWMMXt intrinsic maintenance and WMMX pip= eline description into two patches?=20 > Also based on a quick reading I find that > 1. The documentation for the new intrinsics added is missing and that > needs to be contributed along with the documentation to invoke.texi > about the new options that are being added. About the documentation, I found there is no iWMMXt intrinsic doc in extend= .texi (which only has WMMX built-in function doc instead).With reference to= NEON (existing NEON intrinsic doc), should the iWMMXt intrinsic doc be pro= vide or just simply update the WMMX build-in function? Is it possible to po= stpone the doc patch since it maybe takes a long time to prepare? > There is a lot of restructuring of pattern names in neon.md. When you > say you tested arm-linux-gnueabi did you specifically test the neon port > with your patches applied to be sure that nothing broke there since I > notice this churn ? I have tested all the neon test under gcc.target/arm and gcc.target/arm/neo= n. I prefer holding the WMMX auto-vectorization patch for a while. > Based on a quick skim of the patch - > In a number of places I noticed that you have > For e.g. in your pipeline descriptions . > ior (eq_attr ("wtype" "waligni") > ior (eq_attr ("wtype" "walignr")) > etc... > You could rationalize these with=20 > eq_attr "wtype" "waligni, walignr" makes these things smaller :) Thanks for direction! That's really convenient. Thanks, Xinyu