[PATCH] D50229: +fp16fml feature for ARM and AArch64
SjoerdMeijer added a comment. Ah, and just for your info, the proposal was just sent to the dev list: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/126346.html Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50229 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D50229: +fp16fml feature for ARM and AArch64
SjoerdMeijer added a comment. (I am now picking this up, and will try to progress this patch and also https://reviews.llvm.org/D50179) > Do you expect that the regression tests will be affected by the TargetParser > fixes? No, and that's exactly the reason why it would be nice to get this in. The tests won't change, they show the expected behaviour, and thus we have a sort of "baseline implementation" while we are working on the new options framework. And just repeating what I said in the other ticket, this option handling implementation is far from ideal and pretty, it's very easy to agree on that. This is a low maintenance patch, so very easy to keep downstream for us, but it would be useful to have it on trunk too perhaps. I will add comments and a FIXME that we expect a full reimplementation of it. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50229 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D50229: +fp16fml feature for ARM and AArch64
efriedma added a comment. Do you expect that the regression tests will be affected by the TargetParser fixes? If not, I guess this is okay... but please add clear comments explaining which bits of code you expect to go away after the TargetParser rewrite. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50229 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D50229: +fp16fml feature for ARM and AArch64
bogden added a reviewer: efriedma. bogden added a comment. Hello Eli -- Sjoerd pointed out that you had concerns about this sort of command-line manipulation in his patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D50179. I'm having to do something similar here to deal with +fp16fml being implied by +fp16 from v8.4-A, but implying +fp16 prior to that. The intent that this is a temporary workaround to permit use of this feature, until the TargetParser becomes capable of expressing this kind of thing. Is it acceptable to commit on this basis? Thanks Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50229 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D50229: +fp16fml feature for ARM and AArch64
bogden created this revision. bogden added a reviewer: SjoerdMeijer. Herald added a reviewer: javed.absar. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, chrib, kristof.beyls. v8.4-A adds a few fp16 instructions that can optionally be implemented in CPUs of v8.2-A and above. This patch adds a feature to clang to permit selection of these instructions. This interacts with the +fp16 option as follows: 1. Prior to v8.4-A +fp16fml implies +fp16 +nofp16 implies +nofp16fml 2. From v8.4-A The above conditions apply, additionally: +fp16 implies +fp16fml Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50229 Files: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/AArch64.cpp lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/ARM.cpp test/Driver/aarch64-cpus.c test/Driver/arm-cortex-cpus.c test/Preprocessor/aarch64-target-features.c test/Preprocessor/arm-target-features.c Index: test/Preprocessor/arm-target-features.c === --- test/Preprocessor/arm-target-features.c +++ test/Preprocessor/arm-target-features.c @@ -21,18 +21,58 @@ // CHECK-V8A-ALLOW-FP-INSTR: #define __ARM_FP16_FORMAT_IEEE 1 // CHECK-V8A-ALLOW-FP-INSTR-V8A-NOT: #define __ARM_FEATURE_DOTPROD -// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2a+fp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2-a+nofp16fml+fp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2-a+nofp16+fp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2-a+fp16+nofp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8-a+fp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8-a+fp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+nofp16fml+fp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+nofp16+fp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+fp16+nofp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+fp16fml -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+fp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR %s // CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FEATURE_FP16_SCALAR_ARITHMETIC 1 // CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FEATURE_FP16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC 1 // CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FP 0xe // CHECK-FULLFP16-VECTOR-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FP16_FORMAT_IEEE 1 -// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2a+fp16 -mfpu=vfp4 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR %s +// +fp16fml without neon doesn't make sense as the fp16fml instructions all require SIMD. +// However, as +fp16fml implies +fp16 there is a set of defines that we would expect. +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8-a+fp16fml -mfpu=vfp4 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8-a+fp16 -mfpu=vfp4 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+fp16fml -mfpu=vfp4 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.4-a+fp16 -mfpu=vfp4 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR %s // CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FEATURE_FP16_SCALAR_ARITHMETIC 1 // CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR-NOT: #define __ARM_FEATURE_FP16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC 1 // CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FP 0xe // CHECK-FULLFP16-SCALAR: #define __ARM_FP16_FORMAT_IEEE 1 -// + +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2-a -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FULLFP16-NOFML-VECTOR-SCALAR %s +// RUN: %clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8.2-a+nofp16 -x c -E -dM %s -o - | FileCheck -match-full-lines --check-prefix=CHECK-FU
