On 6 Jul, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> f you can also try to add something for “movemask” would be also great! > > Please file enhancement PRs (after making sure they don't already exist) with as much information as you can. I am unlikely to implement that any time soon, maybe somebody else will be... > > For the vector extension, we don't want things that are too specific to a processor. Maybe an operation that takes an integer vector guaranteed to have only 0 and -1 as elements and compacting it to a bitfield would make sense (and the reverse operation), this would be relevant for sparc-vis and for avx512. Movemask seems a bit too weird for direct support. I submitted PR56829 April last year … maybe it needs a bit of rewording to attract possible contributors v.
