Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "vpmovzxdq".
2014 Sep 19
4
[LLVMdev] Please benchmark new x86 vector shuffle lowering, planning to make it the default very soon!
...r bits in %xmm0 are unused. Later on, the code uses
register %xmm0 in a 'vcvtss2sd' instruction; only the lower 32-bits of
%xmm0 have a meaning in this context).
As for 1. I'll try to create a small reproducible.
3. When zero extending 2 packed 32-bit integers, we should try to
emit a vpmovzxdq
Example:
vmovq 20(%rbx), %xmm0
vpshufd $80, %xmm0, %xmm0 # %xmm0 = %xmm0[0,0,1,1]
Before:
vpmovzxdq 20(%rbx), %xmm0
4. We no longer emit a simpler 'vmovq' in the following case:
vxorpd %xmm4, %xmm4, %xmm4
vblendpd $2, %xmm4, %xmm2, %xmm4 # %xmm4 = %xmm2[0],%xmm4[1]
Before...
2016 Jan 18
2
Lets do a 1.3.2 release
Dave Yeo wrote:
> Seems that the default binutils on OS/2 is too old to support AVX2,
> attached patch works around this. Not the best solution as best would be
> configure tests, but simple.
Are you sure that these binutils support AVX and FMA? (Currently libFLAC
doesn't contain AVX and FMA instructions). If they aren't supported then
it's better to include them too into
2016 Jan 18
0
Lets do a 1.3.2 release
...essages:
R:/tmp/ccwvrScM.s:495: Error: operand type mismatch for `vbroadcastss'
...
R:/tmp/ccwvrScM.s:8773: Error: operand type mismatch for `vpsrlq'
R:/tmp/ccwvrScM.s:8778: Error: no such instruction: `vpermd
%ymm1,%ymm5,%ymm0'
R:/tmp/ccwvrScM.s:8859: Error: operand type mismatch for `vpmovzxdq'
...
Best to be safe so updated patch attached.
I've also opened a ticket, http://trac.netlabs.org/rpm/ticket/165#ticket
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-OS-2-currently-has-too-old-of-a-binutils-to-support-.patch
Type: applicatio...
2014 Sep 10
13
[LLVMdev] Please benchmark new x86 vector shuffle lowering, planning to make it the default very soon!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> Awesome, thanks for all the information!
>
> See below:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing
>> some features; for example, you explicitly