> On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 16:45 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> Hi Carl, >> >> That looks like a typo in the ABI document to me. The return type >> should match the >> argument types like it does for the other variants. Sorry -- I'll >> open a bug against >> the ABI doc. > > So, the ABI doc currently says: > > vector unsigned char vec_permxor (vector signed char, vector signed char, > vector signed char); > vector unsigned char vec_permxor (vector unsigned char, vector unsigned > char, vector unsigned char); > > and we want it to read: > > vector signed char vec_permxor (vector signed char, vector signed char, > vector signed char); > vector unsigned char vec_permxor (vector unsigned char, vector unsigned > char, vector unsigned char);
Yep, correct! Bill > > If so, we only want the changes to vec_insert4b in builtins-7-p9-runnable.c. > > I will re-spin the patch. Thanks. > > Carl Love > >> vec_insert4b >> Thanks! Good catch, Segher. >> >> -- Bill >> >> Bill Schmidt, Ph.D. >> STSM, GCC Architect for Linux on Power >> IBM Linux Technology Center >> wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >> >>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crash >>> ing.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Carl, >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 01:57:52PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: >>>> The following patch fixes the return type for the existing >>>> vec_permxor >>>> builtin to match the ABI specification. The test case for the >>>> builtin >>>> is also updates. >>> >>> Hrm, is that a bug in the ABI doc though? Bill? Most older >>> builtins >>> return their source type; some newer ones always return >>> unsigned? Is this >>> on purpose? >>> >>>> Secondly, the first argument of the vec_insert4b() builtin test >>>> case is >>>> fixed to match the ABI specification for the builtin. >>> >>> The patch is fine for trunk if the ABI doc is correct. Thanks, >>> >>> >>> Segher >>> >> >>
