From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37086) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJ24w-0006p2-8i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:31:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJ24p-0004fZ-93 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:31:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34478) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJ24o-0004Wp-Tu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:31:39 -0400 References: <20190420073442.7488-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org> <6206270f-2994-ae8d-db89-346a06a684f1@linaro.org> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <3dcf1500-f684-0c83-f96c-2ebf2647c94b@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:31:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6206270f-2994-ae8d-db89-346a06a684f1@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/38] tcg vector improvements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 23.04.19 22:26, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 4/23/19 12:15 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 20.04.19 09:34, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> Based-on: tcg-next, which at present is only tcg_gen_extract2. >>> >>> The dupm patches have been on list before, with a larger context >>> of supporting tcg/ppc. The rest of the set was written to support >>> David's s390 vector patches. In particular: >>> >>> (1) Add vector absolute value. >>> (2) Add vector shift by non-constant scalar. >>> (3) Add vector shift by vector. >>> (4) Add vector select. >> >> Remind me, is this for VECTOR SELECT on s390x where we already added a >> vector variant? At least VECTOR SELECT on s390x works on bit, not >> element granularity. > > > No, this was more for implementing _vec helpers, where we can > reasonably use element granularity (since that's all x86 has). > > I thought about adding a bitsel alongside cmpsel, to work on > bits like this, but haven't yet. > Makes sense, thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb