Jianxin, Sun; I get another solution for this Is_Target_SSE41() problem, I suggest a patch like this:
--- osprey/common/com/config_lno.cxx (revision 3697)
+++ osprey/common/com/config_lno.cxx (working copy)
@@ -1232,7 +1232,7 @@
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;
+ LNO_Iter_threshold = (Is_Aggressive_SIMD_Target())? 8 : 0;
}
}
--- osprey/common/com/SL/config_targ.h (revision 3697)
+++ osprey/common/com/SL/config_targ.h (working copy)
@@ -161,6 +161,7 @@
#define Is_Target_ISA_M2Plus() (Target_ISA >= TARGET_ISA_M2)
#define Is_Target_ISA_M3Plus() (Target_ISA >= TARGET_ISA_M3)
#define Is_Target_ISA_M4Plus() (Target_ISA >= TARGET_ISA_M4)
+#define Is_Aggressive_SIMD_Target() (FALSE)
--- osprey/common/com/x8664/config_targ.h (revision 3697)
+++ osprey/common/com/x8664/config_targ.h (working copy)
@@ -194,8 +194,8 @@
#define Target_x87_precision() (Target_x87_Precision+0)
#define Is_Target_Barcelona() (Target == TARGET_barcelona)
#define Is_Target_Orochi() (Target == TARGET_orochi)
+#define Is_Aggressive_SIMD_Target() (Target_SSE41 == TRUE)
with this patch, we do not introduce the #ifdef in the target independent
sections and also keep the capabilitity to share the code. The patch has
been tested on x86 and SL targets.
The attached patch also solves other build broken problems for non-x86
targets.
Please help a review.
Gang
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jian-Xin Lai <laij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sun,
>
> I think Gang's first patch is good enough to fix the compilation error on
> both IA-64 and SL. We can let him check in the patch at first and continue
> discussing about how to handle the Is_Target_SSE41 (and similar macros).
> What's your opinion?
>
>
> 2011/7/15 Jian-Xin Lai <laij...@gmail.com>
>
>> I think keeping Is_Target_SSE41 undefined on other platforms will help
>> find any potential problems on other platforms caused by x86 specific
>> changes.
>>
>> For example, in this case, changing Is_Target_SSE41 to return false on
>> other platforms will change the original program's semantic. If we
>> keep Is_Target_SSE41 undefined, we are able to find the problem from
>> the compilation error and check the initial and expected value of
>> LNO_Iter_threshold to make sure if this change will impact the target.
>>
>>
>> 2011/7/12 Sun Chan <sun.c...@gmail.com>:
>> > just return false if it does not apply to you
>> > Sun
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Gang Yu <yugang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Thx, Sun.
>> >>
>> >> Since "Is_Target_SSE41()" is quite a target-specific name, we are not
>> sure
>> >> of the original author's intension. If this part is sure of a
>> >> target-independent design, we can take this job and we should make a
>> general
>> >> name for it.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Gang
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Sun Chan <sun.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Lai Jian-Xin
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Lai Jian-Xin
>
build_broken_revised.patch
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Tips for Better Web Security Learn 10 ways to better secure your business today. Topics covered include: Web security, SSL, hacker attacks & Denial of Service (DoS), private keys, security Microsoft Exchange, secure Instant Messaging, and much more. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426210/
_______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
