Thanks Dimitry, I've confirmed your fix is correct.
Landed in r195558.
Alp.
On 02/11/2013 00:07, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 01 Nov 2013, at 22:45, C. Bergström <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/ 1/13 10:43 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:46:45PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
What adds to confusion, in their manual [1] Intel spells them differently
themselves: first, in the table, it says:
_mm_movpi64_epi64 Move MOVDQ2Q
^^^^^
Then later, when they describe what it does, it says:
__m128i _mm_movpi64_pi64(__m64 a)
^^^^
Moves the 64 bits of a to the lower 64 bits of the result, zeroing the
upper bits.
Microsoft (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/has3d153(v=vs.90).aspx)
defines these two:
_mm_movepi64_pi64 MOVDQ2Q Move
_mm_movpi64_epi64 MOVQ2DQ Move
That is:
__m64 _mm_movepi64_pi64 (__m128i a);
MOVDQ2Q
r0 := a0 ;
__m128i _mm_movpi64_epi64 (__m64 a);
MOVDQ2Q
r0 := a0 ; r1 := 0X0 ;
Cf. Intel's:
_mm_movepi64_pi64 Move MOVDQ2Q
_mm_movpi64_epi64 Move MOVDQ2Q
__m64 _mm_movepi64_pi64(__m128i a)
Returns the lower 64 bits of a as an __m64 type: R0 := a0
__m128i _mm_movpi64_pi64(__m64 a)
Moves the 64 bits of a to the lower 64 bits
of the result, zeroing the upper bits: R0 := a0, R1 = 0X0
Assuming that both documents correctly assign instructions to function
names (bonus clue: it also makes them symmetrical), then _mm_movpi64_pi64
is indeed a typo and Clang's header is wrong, while GCC's is correct: it
should read _mm_movpi64_epi64(), not _mm_movpi64_pi64().
Why isn't this being asked on the clang or llvm mailing list? Wouldn't this
impact upstream as well?
Indeed, so redirecting to the cfe-commits list. It looks like this incorrect
function name has been in emmintrin.h since clang r61443 (by andersca).
Basically, we need the typo fixed as follows:
Index: tools/clang/lib/Headers/emmintrin.h
===================================================================
--- tools/clang/lib/Headers/emmintrin.h (revision 193039)
+++ tools/clang/lib/Headers/emmintrin.h (working copy)
@@ -1366,7 +1366,7 @@ _mm_movepi64_pi64(__m128i __a)
}
static __inline__ __m128i __attribute__((__always_inline__, __nodebug__))
-_mm_movpi64_pi64(__m64 __a)
+_mm_movpi64_epi64(__m64 __a)
{
return (__m128i){ (long long)__a, 0 };
}
Is this OK?
-Dimitry
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
