I removed unnecessary expands/builtins and tests are now compiled with -O2.
Is this version ok?

2011/8/22 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Ilya Tocar <tocarip.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You don't need to add "negated" versions, one FMA builtin per mode is
>>> enough, please see existing FMA4 descriptions. Just put unary minus
>>> sign in the intrinsics header for "negated" operand and let GCC do its
>>> job. Please see existing FMA4 intrinsics header.
>>>
>> Actually i tried that.But in such case  when i compile(FMA4 example)
>> #include <x86intrin.h>
>> extern  __m128 a,b,c;
>> void foo(){
>>   a = _mm_nmsub_ps(a,b,c);
>> }
>> with -S -O0 -mfma4
>> The asm have
>>
>>        vxorps  %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
>>        vmovaps -16(%rbp), %xmm1
>>        vmovaps .LC0(%rip), %xmm2
>>        vxorps  %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
>>        vfmaddps        %xmm0, -32(%rbp), %xmm1, %xmm0
>> So vfmaddps of negated values is generated instead of vfnmsubps.
>> I think it is bad that intrinsic for  instruction can generate code
>> without this instruction.
>> So to make sure that exact instruction is always generated i
>> introduced additional expands and builtins.
>> Is it wrong?
>
> This is artificial limitation. User requested the functionality of the
> intrinsic, and should not bother with how the compiler realizes it.
> With -O2, negation would propagate into the insn during combine pass,
> and optimal instruction would be generated.
>
> So, to answer your question - it is wrong to expect exact instruction
> from builtins. Maybe from using -O0, but this should not be used
> anyway in the testsuite.
>
> Uros.
>