https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #23 from Steven Munroe ---
Ok, but I strongly recommend a compiler test that verify that the compiler is
generating the expected code (for this and other cases).
We have a history of common code changes (accidental or deliberate)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, we do not do anything AT here; but the patch is not on the GCC 11
branch either.
Xiong Hu, does it backport there cleanly?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #21 from Steven Munroe ---
Yes I was told by Peter Bergner that the fix from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085#c15 had been back ported
top AT15.0-1.
But when ran this test with AT15.0-1 I saw:
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |REOPENED
--- Comment #20 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
And the same with all of GCC 8, GCC 9, GCC 10, GCC 11, and current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #18 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Steven Munroe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #16 from Steven Munroe ---
Created attachment 52510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52510=edit
Reduced tests for xfers from _float128 to vector or __int128
Cover more types including __int128 and vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We *have* TImode already, but most 128-bit scalars currently use V1TImode.
This often leads to reduced performance because that is not a scalar mode,
does not get all optimisations we have generically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #13 from Steven Munroe ---
"We want to use plain TImode instead of V1TImode on newer cpus."
Actually I disagree. We have vector __int128 in the ABI and with POWER10 a
complete set arithmetic operations for 128-bit in VRs.
Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We want to use plain TImode instead of V1TImode on newer cpus. It probably is
a good idea (for performance) on p9 already, but this will need testing. That's
only sideways related to this issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #9)
> But for __float128 to __int128 mentioned in #c4, need hack
> rs6000_modes_tieable_p
> to remove the stack operation in dse1. But I am not sure this is *LEGAL*
> since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #10 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
float128 to vector __int128 is fixed by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=f700e4b0ee3ef53b48975cf89be26b9177e3a3f3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #9 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch sent, it could fix the __float128 to vector __int128 issue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571689.html
But for __float128 to __int128 mentioned in #c4, need hack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> > The rotates in 6 and 7 are not merged, and neither are the vec_selects in
> > 8 and 9. Both should be pretty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Steven Munroe from comment #5)
> Any progress on this?
Sorry, not yet. We've been busy with P10 items and the gcc11 release. It is
on our list for looking into.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #5 from Steven Munroe ---
Any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #4 from Steven Munroe ---
I am seeing this a similar problem with union transfers from __float128 to
__int128.
static inline unsigned __int128
vec_xfer_bin128_2_int128t (__binary128 f128)
{
__VF_128 vunion;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The rotates in 6 and 7 are not merged, and neither are the vec_selects in
8 and 9. Both should be pretty easy to do, there is no unspec in sight,
etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Last reconfirmed|
22 matches
Mail list logo
