Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-12-04 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:48 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 04:19:36PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > > Great! Please repost with what I already pointed out fixed, that > > > explanation added, and working li

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-20 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:40:22PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > I'm looking at ix86_simd_clone_adjust and also aarch64_simd_clone_adjust. > > The latter is > > much simpler and I

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-20 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:14:19PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > > That sounds like libmvec? > > > I still don't know what this is. > > > > Yes, it is libmvec. >

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-18 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, August 17, 2020 5:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:44:46PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > > This is about the Power binding to some OpenMP API, right? It has > > > nothing to do with "vector" o

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-17 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > This is about the Power binding to some OpenMP API, right? It has > nothing to do with "vector" or "ABI" -- we have vectors already, and > we have ABIs already, more than enough of each. >

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-13 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, August 10, 2020 2:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 05:29:49PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > > For PowerPC, if all you want to support is b which requires VSX, then the > > > right thing is for !TREE_P

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

2020-08-10 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, August 7, 2020 4:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:35:52PM +, Bert Tenjy via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > The document describing POWER Architecture Vector Function interface is > > tentatively at: > >

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-03-11 Thread GT via Gcc-patches
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:06 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:22:09PM +0000, GT wrote: > > I have not been able to configure protonmail for either git imap-send or > > send-email. > > Do you use git for

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-03-04 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, March 2, 2020 12:14 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 3/2/20 11:10 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > > > Bill Schmidt writes: > > > > > One tiny nit on the document: For the "b" value, let's just say > > > "VSX" rather than > > > "VSX as

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-03-03 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, March 2, 2020 4:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Indeed, there aren't any yet on the vectorizer side, I thought I've > implemented it > already in the vectorizer but apparently didn't, just the omp-simd-clone.c > part is > implemented (the more

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-03-02 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, March 2, 2020 3:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:20:01PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > Which raises the question: what use-case motivated allowing the compiler > > to auto-vectorize user defined functions? From havin

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-03-02 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:47:19AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > But is this actually a good idea? It seems to me this will generate lousy > > code in the absence of hardware support. Won't we be

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-02-28 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 27, 2020 4:32 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 2/27/20 2:21 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > On 2/27/20 12:48 PM, GT wrote: > > > > > Done. > > > > > > The updated document is at: > > > https:

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-02-27 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:26 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > Upon reflection, I agree. Bert, we need to make changes to the document to > reflect this: > > (1) "Calling convention" should refer to ELFv1 for powerpc64 and ELFv2 for > powerpc64le. Done. Have

Re: GLIBC libmvec status

2020-02-25 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:45 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 2/21/20 6:49 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > > > +Bill, +Segher > > > > GT writes: > > > > > Can I have until tomorrow morning to figure out exa

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-24 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 24, 2020 10:20 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > So, I can answer a small amount of this, but I will say that overall, design > or implementation documentation seems to be between lacking and nonexistent. > > This has to do with "#pragma omp simd"

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-20 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html > > As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX functionality is that

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-20 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 5:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, GT wrote: > > > 1. In the Vector Function ABI document, under section "Vector Function > > Name Mangling", state that all vec

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-19 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > > The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html > > As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX functionality is

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-19 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 16, 2020 3:10 PM, GT wrote: > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, February 14, 2020 5:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote: > &g

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-16 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 5:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty, > > > > cannot simply be re

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-15 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 6:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty, > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resu

Re: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-14 Thread GT
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 3:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +0000, GT wrote: > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty, > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in I

[RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function ABI.

2020-02-14 Thread GT
Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty, cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files unrelated to rs6000.c in order to avoid having a function whose body is empty. Bert.