This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add expansions for min/max vector reductions
- From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "dje dot gcc at gmail dot com" <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:25:55 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add expansions for min/max vector reductions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1442413689 dot 2896 dot 45 dot camel at gnopaine> <55F98AD2 dot 4080408 at arm dot com> <1442420361 dot 10907 dot 3 dot camel at gnopaine> <55F9B1FE dot 8000009 at arm dot com>
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 19:16 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/09/15 17:19, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >> I proposed a patch to migrate PPC off the old patterns, but have forgotten to
> >> ping it recently - last at
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01024.html ... (ping?!)
> >>
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Thanks for this patch. I see that you tested it on gcc110, which is a
> > big-endian platform. I think the pattern for V4SF might have an endian
> > problem on little-endian, but I'm not positive just eyeballing it. (I
> > think that the select of element 3 will address the wrong end of the
> > vector for LE.) Can you please try the patch on gcc112 as well to set
> > my mind at ease?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >> --Alan
> >>
> >
> >
>
> I think you are right....I'm just retesting without the patch to rule out other
> test setup problems etc., but I see more tests failing on gcc112 than I expect
> (comparing against e.g.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg01479.html).
>
> What's the best way to determine endianness - is it BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN, would that
> be true on gcc110 but false on gcc112?
Yes, that's the correct test, thanks!
Bill
>
> Cheers, Alan
>