This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [i386] Replace builtins with vector extensions
- From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:15:16 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [i386] Replace builtins with vector extensions
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1304071030320 dot 4934 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1304082243070 dot 3872 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <CAFiYyc1iONVnTjKJ1gfqtP7Yyf+7PSYb4ZoCUbdVkks1k7tYfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1304091056001 dot 29379 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
I seem to remember discussion in the PR(s) that the intrinsics should
(and do for other compilers) expand to the desired instructions even when
the corresponding instruction set is disabled.
emmintrin.h starts with:
# error "SSE2 instruction set not enabled"
Oh, re-reading your post, it looks like you mean we should change the
current behavior, not just avoid regressions...
My opinion on the intrinsics is that they are the portable way to use
vectors on x86, but they are not equivalent to asm (which people should
use if they don't want the compiler looking at their code). Knowingly
generating SSE code with -mno-sse is not very appealing.
However, the arguments in:
make sense. I guess I'll forget about this patch.