Hi! On 12/13/21 6:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when >>>>> compiled >>>>> on a 32-bit architecture. The old built-in infrastructure requires >>>>> TARGET_64BIT, and >>>>> this was missed in the new support. Moving these two builtins from the >>>>> [power9] >>>>> stanza to the [power9-64] stanza solves the problem. >>>>> >>>>> Tested the fix on a powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu cross. Bootstrapped and >>>>> tested on >>>>> powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this okay for trunk? >>>> Okay. >>> No, as I said before this is not correct, not without a lot more >>> explanation at least. We should not copy errors in the old code into >>> the new code. That is negating one of the main advantages of >>> reimplementing this in the first place! >> Can you please be more specific? >> >> All I have from you before is "It should work for 32-bit though?" I >> responded in the >> bug report that __builtin_darn_32 was used for this purpose. I haven't seen >> a >> response to that. What do you want to see happen? > That of course does not work for _raw. > > These builtins should just return a "long", just like __builtin_ppc_mftb > does. All three of them.
Well, that seems wrong for __builtin_darn_32, which maps to an SImode pattern. So, I assume what you'd like to see is for the other two built-ins to return long, and for the "&& TARGET_64BIT" to be removed from the darn_raw and darn patterns? > >> The patterns in rs6000.md are darn_32, gated by TARGET_P9_MISC; darn_raw, >> gated by >> TARGET_P9_MISC && TARGET_64BIT; and darn, gated by TARGET_P9_MISC && >> TARGET_64BIT. >> The builtins correspond to these patterns in the obvious way. >> >> If you think that these patterns should be enabled differently, that's fine, >> but >> that's a completely different patch than fixing the incorrect built-ins to >> match >> what the patterns do and thus avoid ICEing. > Avoiding ICEs should not be a goal. It should be a side effect of doing > the right thing in the first place! There's no reason to get snippy. Given that you approved Kelvin's original implementation of the darn patterns and built-in functions, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that those were the desired semantics. :-) Thanks, Bill > > > Segher
