Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-13 Thread David Edelsohn
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Steven Munroe wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:59:28PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: >> > > That is just for the testsuite; I meant what happens if a user tries >> > >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-12 Thread Steven Munroe
On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 11:38 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 8, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Steven Munroe wrote: > > Of course as part of this process we will port as many of the > > corresponding DejaGnu tests from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ to > >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-12 Thread Mike Stump
On May 8, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Steven Munroe wrote: > Of course as part of this process we will port as many of the > corresponding DejaGnu tests from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ to > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ as appropriate. So far the dg-do run > tests only

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-11 Thread Steven Munroe
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:59:28PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > > That is just for the testsuite; I meant what happens if a user tries > > > to use it with an older target (or BE, or 32-bit)? Is there a useful, > > > obvious error

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-11 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:59:28PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > That is just for the testsuite; I meant what happens if a user tries > > to use it with an older target (or BE, or 32-bit)? Is there a useful, > > obvious error message? > > > So looking at the X86 headers, their current practice

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-10 Thread Steven Munroe
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 16:03 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:33:00PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:23 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 09:49:57AM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > > > Thus I would like to restrict

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-09 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:33:00PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:23 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 09:49:57AM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > > Thus I would like to restrict this support to PowerPC > > > targets that support VMX/VSX and

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-09 Thread Steven Munroe
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:23 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 09:49:57AM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > > Thus I would like to restrict this support to PowerPC > > targets that support VMX/VSX and PowerISA-2.07 (power8) and later. > > What happens if you run it on

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-09 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 09:49:57AM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: > Thus I would like to restrict this support to PowerPC > targets that support VMX/VSX and PowerISA-2.07 (power8) and later. What happens if you run it on an older machine, or as BE or 32-bit, or with vectors disabled? > So I

[PATCH, rs6000] Add x86 instrinsic headers to GCC PPC64LE taget

2017-05-08 Thread Steven Munroe
A common issue in porting applications and packages is that someone may have forgotten that there is more than one hardware platform. A specific example is applications using Intel x86 intrinsic functions without appropriate conditional compile guards. Another example is a developer tasked to