Thx to Gang for pointing out the regression due to v3681 checkin. Here
is my suggestion:
There are multiple ways to fix the regression that will be seen in
other target builds:
1. Fix based on existing infrastructure:
Each target must add the corresponding function Is_Target_SSE41()
in the corresponding config_targ.h
I agree with Gang that this fix is not desirable since it continues
the practice that will cause target dependent build breaks easily and
the burden lies with the receiving party, not whoever making the
change.
2. Fix that could start a better change to open64 in the longer run:
Define a target independent Is_Target_SSE41() that will return
"false" for all targets, and in the one that matters, return result
appropriately.
One can do this in one of the following two ways I can think of:
a. define the function with template, and let the "target"
specialize that accordingly. This is standard template implementation
b. define the generic version as weak, and let the "target"
version that the implementor cares about to return the desired result
as "strong". This is the implementation most libraries (like libc)
use.
Now, can I get some volunteer to go about implementing this?
Sun
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Gang Yu <yugang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SL target builds fail today due to the LNO check-in v3681, the build fail
> comes from the patch:
>
> Index: config_lno.cxx
> ===================================================================
> --- config_lno.cxx (revision 3643)
> +++ config_lno.cxx (revision 3681)
> @@ -1224,5 +1227,12 @@
> Mhd_Options.L[i].TLB_Miss_Penalty;
> }
> }
> +
> + /* Value of 1 for LNO_Iter_threshold is interpreted as default in which
> case
> + the flag is set based on target. Otherwise use user-specified value.
> + */
> + if(LNO_Iter_threshold == 1) {
> + LNO_Iter_threshold = (Is_Target_SSE41())? 8 : 0;
> + }
> }
> Index: /home/yugang/trunk/trunk/osprey/be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx
> ===================================================================
> --- /home/yugang/trunk/trunk/osprey/be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx (revision 3666)
> +++ /home/yugang/trunk/trunk/osprey/be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx (revision 3681)
> @@ -3166,9 +3166,18 @@
> WN *compare;
> VARIANT variant;
>
> + if (opcode == OPC_V16I1V16I1SELECT) {
> + TN* op1 = Expand_Expr(WN_kid0(select), select, NULL);
> + TN* op2 = Expand_Expr(WN_kid1(select), select, NULL);
> + TN* op3 = Expand_Expr(WN_kid2(select), select, NULL);
>
> + if (result == NULL)
> + result = Allocate_Result_TN (select, NULL);
> +
> + Expand_Select(result, op1, op2, op3, MTYPE_V16I1, FALSE, &New_OPs);
> //FALSE passed as dummy arg
> + return result;
> + }
>
> the "Is_Target_SSE41()", "OPC_V16I1V16I1SELECT" and "MTYPE_V16I1" are
> specific to X86 targets, these patches will cause other targets fail,
>
> The suggest patche is:
> Index: config_lno.cxx
> ===================================================================
> --- config_lno.cxx (revision 3681)
> +++ config_lno.cxx (working copy)
> @@ -1228,11 +1228,13 @@
> }
> }
>
> +#ifdef TARG_X8664
> /* Value of 1 for LNO_Iter_threshold is interpreted as default in which
> case
> the flag is set based on target. Otherwise use user-specified value.
> */
> if(LNO_Iter_threshold == 1) {
> LNO_Iter_threshold = (Is_Target_SSE41())? 8 : 0;
> }
> +#endif
> }
>
> Index: ../../be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx
> ===================================================================
> --- ../../be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx (revision 3681)
> +++ ../../be/cg/whirl2ops.cxx (working copy)
> @@ -3166,6 +3166,7 @@
> WN *compare;
> VARIANT variant;
>
> +#ifdef TARG_X8664
> if (opcode == OPC_V16I1V16I1SELECT) {
> TN* op1 = Expand_Expr(WN_kid0(select), select, NULL);
> TN* op2 = Expand_Expr(WN_kid1(select), select, NULL);
> @@ -3177,6 +3178,7 @@
> Expand_Select(result, op1, op2, op3, MTYPE_V16I1, FALSE, &New_OPs);
> //FALSE passed as dummy arg
> return result;
> }
> +#endif
>
>
>
> Would a gatekeeper help a review?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Gang
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
> _______________________________________________
> Open64-devel mailing list
> Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
Open64-devel mailing list
Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
