Re: [RFC] Add check_effective_target_vect_min_max

[Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Rainer Orth wrote:

> Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> writes:
> 
> > On 12/08/15 10:51, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> This follow-up patch introduces a new effective target vect_min_max,
> >>> similar to how effective target vect_bswap is implemented.
> >>>
> >>> Any comments?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> - Tom
> >>>
> >>> Add check_effective_target_vect_min_max
> >>>
> >>> 2015-08-12  Tom de Vries  <tom@codesourcery.com>
> >>>
> >>> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_min_max): New
> >>> 	proc.
> >>> 	* gcc.dg/vect/trapv-vect-reduc-4.c: Use vect_min_max effective target.
> >>
> >> Looks good to me, but the new effective-target keyword needs documenting
> >> in sourcebuild.texi.
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, in sourcebuild.texi I found:
> > ...
> > @item vect_no_int_max
> > Target does not support a vector max instruction on @code{int}.
> > ...
> >
> > That looks related. [ I also found a patch introducing vect_no_uint_max
> > here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00152.html. ]
> >
> > I'm not sure where to take it from here. Should I introduce
> > vect_no_int_min, and use that in combination with vect_no_int_max?
> 
> I'd say this is something for the vectorizer maintainers to decide.  Richi?

I expect the above is already effectively
vect_no_int_min as well (which target would support min but not max...?).

So after double-checking that you could rename it to vect_no_int_min_max.

Richard.