From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-333507-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16105 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2012 18:12:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 16097 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2012 18:12:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_ZJ
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:12:52 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id a19so1191452qad.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:12:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.191.137 with SMTP id dm9mr20732488qab.40.1354644771395; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.12.210 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:12:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4aPuceLK0uBhoK-ZVvMi_TqkiwijNddYVL9B4iKaN358Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1210131032460.9651@stedding.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4YHdLF1ZyxrMG8MhRjo40f-EfAJZnDOEBc80pOGa4WNGQ@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1210141057010.3752@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1211301317160.3783@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4bVFbr1KC6FrjWOhEfmqEr_v2VuQMFjg4+TpTB681=HhA@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1211302244290.3783@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1212011800400.19206@stedding.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4Z=8xeVScUM7JSqkHHXJrmO7qVa40q-h-mUE+Vehb86vw@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1212021215330.3747@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4Z4Ywk+BQupB+=tDKiWx5QrCt9VL83XF4Xtgu03=y0VZw@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1212030958050.3737@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4a5my_Hre6k5kTUm2UqpBX06kKKe9jjMiFisBJSUJPxyw@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1212041436150.3790@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1212041715370.22183@stedding.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFULd4aPuceLK0uBhoK-ZVvMi_TqkiwijNddYVL9B4iKaN358Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:12:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpdBqD3A+EVVqbkhaos7my2ZNkdOky89AOa8Ye0OkeEKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [i386] scalar ops that preserve the high part of a vector
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com>
Cc: Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>>> Do you agree?
>>
>>
>> Like this ? (only tested on the new testcases, and then I'd need to ask Eric
>> his opinion)
>>
>> 2012-12-04  Marc Glisse  <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
>>
>>         PR target/54855
>> gcc/
>>         * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1) <VEC_CONCAT>: Replace
>>         with VEC_MERGE.
>>
>>         * config/i386/sse.md (<sse>_vm<plusminus_insn><mode>3): Rewrite
>>         pattern.
>>         * config/i386/i386-builtin-types.def: New function types.
>>         * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_args_builtin): Likewise.
>>         (bdesc_args) <__builtin_ia32_addss, __builtin_ia32_subss,
>>         __builtin_ia32_addsd, __builtin_ia32_subsd>: Change prototype.
>>         * config/i386/xmmintrin.h: Adapt to new builtin prototype.
>>         * config/i386/emmintrin.h: Likewise.
>>         * doc/extend.texi (X86 Built-in Functions): Document changed
>> prototype.
>>
>>
>> testsuite/
>>         * gcc.target/i386/pr54855-1.c: New testcase.
>>         * gcc.target/i386/pr54855-2.c: New testcase.
>
> Yes, the approach taken in this patch looks really good to me. There
> should be no code differences with your patch, but let's ask HJ for
> his opinion on intrinsics header changes.

Hi Kirill,

Can you take  a look?  Thanks.

> A little nit below:
>
>> +           rtx newop0 = gen_rtx_fmt_e (VEC_DUPLICATE, mode, trueop0);
>> +           rtx newop1 = XEXP (trueop1, 0);
>> +           return simplify_gen_ternary (VEC_MERGE, mode, GET_MODE (newop0),
>> +                                        newop0, newop1, GEN_INT (1));
>
> You can use const1_rtx here.
>
> Thanks,
> Uros.



-- 
H.J.