https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #19 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Apr 22 16:09:13 2019
New Revision: 270493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270493=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-22 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #18 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Apr 17 15:40:12 2019
New Revision: 270413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270413=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-17 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #17 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri Apr 12 12:51:58 2019
New Revision: 270313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270313=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-04-12 Kelvin Nilsen
PR target/87532
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #16 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Fri Mar 15 19:52:43 2019
New Revision: 269715
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269715=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-03-15 Kelvin Nilsen
PR target/87532
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
I kindasorta thought that's what I want. ;-) But now that I understand what
you're saying, I believe I agree with you that this is probably a problem in
our gimple folding. I am going to shut up now and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #14 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To reconcile comments 12 and 13, the subtle issue is that we don't even get
into the altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin function for the following code:
vec_extract (vi, 10);
The gimple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, please look at my previous comment. I believe the problem is in the
VEC_EXTRACT processing in rs6000-c.c until proven otherwise... can you please
try my debugging suggestion?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #12 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After further digging, I have uncovered some additional clues:
after initial gimple expansion (i.e. the 005t.gimple trace file):
vec_extract (vi, 3) is represented by __builtin_vec_ext_v4si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Let me take back what I said earlier. We've had full support for vec_extract
with a variable second argument for quite a long time. So let me try again
responding to comment #4.
We have special-case code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm. Hang on while I look at some history.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #9 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The new tests proposed by as part of this PR represent illegal code and are
properly rejected by the compiler.
However, the compiler is not currently rejecting the following test program
even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note IIRC vec_extract came from the Cell BE C/C++ extension guide. I can't
> seem to find that guide any more either :(.
Try googling for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
To be absolutely clear, code like
unsigned int get_auto_n_int ( vector unsigned int a, int n) { return
__builtin_vec_extract (a, n); }
is invalid. The second argument must be constant. This was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note IIRC vec_extract came from the Cell BE C/C++ extension guide. I can't
seem to find that guide any more either :(. It does matter less these days as
the ABI documents this intrinsics now too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
To your second point, the new intrinsic programming reference under development
already abandons the language about v[i], so that's covered. The next version
of the ABI will drop vector API stuff (chapter 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #4 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this a bug or just "bad documentation"?
64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification says vec_extract (v, 3) is equivalent to v[3].
Then it clarifies that vec_extract (arg1, arg2) uses modular arithmetic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||will_schmidt at vnet dot
ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #1 from Will Schmidt ---
Created attachment 44797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44797=edit
simpler testcase variation
Simplified the testcase a bit.
comment/uncomment the noinline attribute on the get_auto_n()
20 matches
Mail list logo
