Re: [i386] Replace builtins with vector extensions

[Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>]

Ping,

nobody has an opinion on this? Or some explanation why I am mistaken to 
believe that #pragma target makes it safer now?

It would enable a number of optimizations, like constant propagation, FMA 
contraction, etc. It would also allow us to remove several builtins.

On Sat, 17 May 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:

> Ping
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> > Ping
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00590.html
> >
> > (note that ARM seems to be doing the same thing for their neon intrinsics, 
> > see Ramana's patch series posted today)
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > the previous discussion on the topic was before we added all those #pragma 
> > > target in *mmintrin.h:
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00374.html
> > >
> > > I believe that removes a large part of the arguments against it. Note that 
> > > I only did a few of the more obvious intrinsics, I am waiting to see if 
> > > this patch is accepted before doing more.
> > >
> > > Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> > >
> > > 2014-04-11  Marc Glisse  <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
> > >
> > > 	* config/i386/xmmintrin.h (_mm_add_ps, _mm_sub_ps, _mm_mul_ps,
> > > 	_mm_div_ps, _mm_store_ss, _mm_cvtss_f32): Use vector extensions
> > > 	instead of builtins.
> > > 	* config/i386/emmintrin.h (_mm_store_sd, _mm_cvtsd_f64, _mm_storeh_pd,
> > > 	_mm_cvtsi128_si64, _mm_cvtsi128_si64x, _mm_add_pd, _mm_sub_pd,
> > > 	_mm_mul_pd, _mm_div_pd, _mm_storel_epi64, _mm_movepi64_pi64,
> > > 	_mm_loadh_pd, _mm_loadl_pd): Likewise.
> > > 	(_mm_sqrt_sd): Fix comment.

--
Marc Glisse