From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120176 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2015 20:42:28 -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 120163 invoked by uid 89); 4 Sep 2015 20:42:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 20:42:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 624FD91DCA; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t84KgOnB007327; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:42:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] Try vector as a new representation for vector masks To: Ilya Enkovich , Richard Biener References: <55D62076.8020105@redhat.com> <20150901130800.GA55610@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> Cc: GCC Patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <55EA0230.3000102@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 20:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150901130800.GA55610@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 On 09/01/2015 07:08 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > On 27 Aug 09:55, Richard Biener wrote: >> I suggest you try modifying those parts first according to this >> scheme that will most likely uncover issues we missed. >> >> Thanks, Richard. >> > > I tried to implement this scheme and apply it for MASK_LOAD and > MASK_STORE. There were no major issues (for now). So do we have enough confidence in this representation that we want to go ahead and commit to it? > > I had to introduce significant number of new patterns in i386 target > to support new optabs. The reason was vector compare was never > expanded separately and always was a part of a vec_cond expansion. One could argue we should have fixed this already, so I don't see the new patterns as a bad thing, but instead they're addressing a long term mis-design. > > > For now I still don't disable bool patterns, thus new masks apply to > masked loads and stores only. Patch is also not tested and tried on > several small tests only. Could you please look at what I currently > have and say if it's in sync with your view on vector masking? I'm going to let Richi run with this for the most part -- but I will chime in with a thank you for being willing to bounce this around a bit while we figure out the representational issues. jeff