Hi,
on 2024/2/21 01:56, Carl Love wrote:
> GCC maintainers:
>
> The patch expands an existing comment to document that the duplicates are
> covered by an overloaded built-in. I am wondering if we should just go ahead
> and remove the duplicates?
As the below comments Bill placed before, I think we should remove them, since
users should use the standard interface vec_perm which is defined by PVIPR.
They are not undocumented at all, in case some users are still using such
builtins
they should switch to use vec_perm instead, so even if it's stage 4 now, it
looks
still fine to drop them IMHO.
Segher & Peter, what do you think of this?
BR,
Kewen
>
> The patch has been tested on Power 10 with no regressions.
>
> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable for mainline. Thanks.
>
> Carl
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> rs6000, Update comment for the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins.
>
> There is a comment about the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins being
> duplicates of the __builtin_altivec_* built-ins. The note says we
> should consider deprecation/removeal of the __builtin_vsx_vper*. Add a
> note that the _builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins are covered by the overloaded
> vec_perm built-ins which use the __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def ( __builtin_vsx_vperm_*):
> Add comment to existing comment about the built-ins.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> index 96d095da2cb..4c95429f137 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> @@ -1556,6 +1556,14 @@
> ; These are duplicates of __builtin_altivec_* counterparts, and are being
> ; kept for backwards compatibility. The reason for their existence is
> ; unclear. TODO: Consider deprecation/removal at some point.
> +; Note, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi_uns,
> +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_1ti, __builtin_vsx_vperm_v1ti_uns,
> +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2df, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di,
> +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di_uns, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4sf,
> +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si_uns,
> +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_8hi, __builtin_altivec_vperm_8hi_uns
> +; are all covered by the overloaded vec_perm built-in which uses the
> +; __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions.
> const vsc __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi (vsc, vsc, vuc);
> VPERM_16QI_X altivec_vperm_v16qi {}
>
