This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh" <Ganesh dot Gopalasubramanian at amd dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:02:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
References: <20120808113105.21153.11115.sendpatchset@adcelk01.amd.com> <CAFULd4Y0rVm5surLv25rF=xHV=6tOhHC49DeMp9s+Fm3_Mo7QA@mail.gmail.com> <EB4625145972F94C9680D8CADD6516152A06E944@sausexdag04.amd.com> <CAFULd4Z2u2y64BiUjZk6FoO7MtuWjepbZ7mRQmMRW0Rc7+T=FQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 2012-08-10 12:59, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Actually, this is the problem you are trying to solve. The fma4
> patterns are defined before fma3, so gcc prefers these.

The Real Problem is that they should not be separate patterns.
They should be a single pattern that selects alternatives via
the enabled isa.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Uros Bizjak

References:
- [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian
- Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- RE: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
- Re: [PATCH,i386] fma,fma4 and xop flags
  - From: Uros Bizjak

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]