Re: rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 06:07:26PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in > > > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the > > > "nosoft" > > > built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit". > > > This patch fixes a P1 regression and from my (limited) understanding > > doesn't depend on any other patch in the series. > > It depends on 3/8 which was only partially applied (or not at all even?) > It is a mess :-( > > I'll look into it tomorrow. 3/8 wasn't applied at all. I did some surgery to apply this 8/8 though. Segher
Re: rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in > > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the > > "nosoft" > > built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit". > This patch fixes a P1 regression and from my (limited) understanding > doesn't depend on any other patch in the series. It depends on 3/8 which was only partially applied (or not at all even?) It is a mess :-( I'll look into it tomorrow. Segher
Re: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
On Fri, 2022-01-28 at 11:50 -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new
> built-in
> function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the
> "nosoft"
> built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit".
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> Is this okay for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
Hi,
The patch here seems reasonable to me.
There are comments/subsequent pings that include commentary about
additional test coverage.
I see all of the builtins referenced here appear to be touched by
the existing test gcc.target/powerpc/test_fpscr_drn_builtin.c .
I could create a variation of that test forcing ! hard_dfp in case that
would help, though i'm uncertain the value there.
Thanks
-Will
>
> 2022-01-27 Bill Schmidt
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (MFFSL): Mark nosoft.
> (MTFSB0): Likewise.
> (MTFSB1): Likewise.
> (SET_FPSCR_RN): Likewise.
> (SET_FPSCR_DRN): Mark nosoft and no32bit.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> index c8f0cf332eb..98619a649e3 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
> ; processors, this builtin automatically falls back to mffs on older
> ; platforms. Thus it appears here in the [always] stanza.
>double __builtin_mffsl ();
> -MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
> +MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {nosoft}
>
> ; This is redundant with __builtin_pack_ibm128, as it requires long
> ; double to be __ibm128. Should probably be deprecated.
> @@ -226,10 +226,10 @@
> MFTB rs6000_mftb_di {32bit}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsb0 (const int<0,31>);
> -MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {}
> +MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {nosoft}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsb1 (const int<0,31>);
> -MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {}
> +MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {nosoft}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsf (const int<0,255>, double);
> MTFSF rs6000_mtfsf {}
> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@
> PACK_IF packif {}
>
>void __builtin_set_fpscr_rn (const int[0,3]);
> -SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {}
> +SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {nosoft}
>
>const double __builtin_unpack_ibm128 (__ibm128, const int<0,1>);
> UNPACK_IF unpackif {}
> @@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@
> PACK_TD packtd {}
>
>void __builtin_set_fpscr_drn (const int[0,7]);
> -SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {}
> +SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {nosoft,no32bit}
>
>const unsigned long long __builtin_unpack_dec128 (_Decimal128, \
> const int<0,1>);
rs6000 patch ping^2: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in
> > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the
> > "nosoft"
> > built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit".
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> > Is this okay for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > 2022-01-27 Bill Schmidt
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (MFFSL): Mark nosoft.
> > (MTFSB0): Likewise.
> > (MTFSB1): Likewise.
> > (SET_FPSCR_RN): Likewise.
> > (SET_FPSCR_DRN): Mark nosoft and no32bit.
>
> This patch fixes a P1 regression and from my (limited) understanding
> doesn't depend on any other patch in the series.
>
> Is this ok for trunk (I agree some testcase coverage would be nice)?
I'd like to ping this again.
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> > b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> > index c8f0cf332eb..98619a649e3 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
> > ; processors, this builtin automatically falls back to mffs on older
> > ; platforms. Thus it appears here in the [always] stanza.
> >double __builtin_mffsl ();
> > -MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
> > +MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {nosoft}
> >
> > ; This is redundant with __builtin_pack_ibm128, as it requires long
> > ; double to be __ibm128. Should probably be deprecated.
> > @@ -226,10 +226,10 @@
> > MFTB rs6000_mftb_di {32bit}
> >
> >void __builtin_mtfsb0 (const int<0,31>);
> > -MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {}
> > +MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {nosoft}
> >
> >void __builtin_mtfsb1 (const int<0,31>);
> > -MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {}
> > +MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {nosoft}
> >
> >void __builtin_mtfsf (const int<0,255>, double);
> > MTFSF rs6000_mtfsf {}
> > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@
> > PACK_IF packif {}
> >
> >void __builtin_set_fpscr_rn (const int[0,3]);
> > -SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {}
> > +SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {nosoft}
> >
> >const double __builtin_unpack_ibm128 (__ibm128, const int<0,1>);
> > UNPACK_IF unpackif {}
> > @@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@
> > PACK_TD packtd {}
> >
> >void __builtin_set_fpscr_drn (const int[0,7]);
> > -SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {}
> > +SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {nosoft,no32bit}
> >
> >const unsigned long long __builtin_unpack_dec128 (_Decimal128, \
> > const int<0,1>);
> > --
> > 2.27.0
>
> Jakub
Jakub
rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in
> function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the "nosoft"
> built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit".
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> Is this okay for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> 2022-01-27 Bill Schmidt
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (MFFSL): Mark nosoft.
> (MTFSB0): Likewise.
> (MTFSB1): Likewise.
> (SET_FPSCR_RN): Likewise.
> (SET_FPSCR_DRN): Mark nosoft and no32bit.
This patch fixes a P1 regression and from my (limited) understanding
doesn't depend on any other patch in the series.
Is this ok for trunk (I agree some testcase coverage would be nice)?
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> index c8f0cf332eb..98619a649e3 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
> ; processors, this builtin automatically falls back to mffs on older
> ; platforms. Thus it appears here in the [always] stanza.
>double __builtin_mffsl ();
> -MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
> +MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {nosoft}
>
> ; This is redundant with __builtin_pack_ibm128, as it requires long
> ; double to be __ibm128. Should probably be deprecated.
> @@ -226,10 +226,10 @@
> MFTB rs6000_mftb_di {32bit}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsb0 (const int<0,31>);
> -MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {}
> +MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {nosoft}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsb1 (const int<0,31>);
> -MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {}
> +MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {nosoft}
>
>void __builtin_mtfsf (const int<0,255>, double);
> MTFSF rs6000_mtfsf {}
> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@
> PACK_IF packif {}
>
>void __builtin_set_fpscr_rn (const int[0,3]);
> -SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {}
> +SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {nosoft}
>
>const double __builtin_unpack_ibm128 (__ibm128, const int<0,1>);
> UNPACK_IF unpackif {}
> @@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@
> PACK_TD packtd {}
>
>void __builtin_set_fpscr_drn (const int[0,7]);
> -SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {}
> +SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {nosoft,no32bit}
>
>const unsigned long long __builtin_unpack_dec128 (_Decimal128, \
> const int<0,1>);
> --
> 2.27.0
Jakub
[PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]
PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in
function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the "nosoft"
built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked "no32bit".
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this okay for trunk?
Thanks,
Bill
2022-01-27 Bill Schmidt
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (MFFSL): Mark nosoft.
(MTFSB0): Likewise.
(MTFSB1): Likewise.
(SET_FPSCR_RN): Likewise.
(SET_FPSCR_DRN): Mark nosoft and no32bit.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
index c8f0cf332eb..98619a649e3 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
; processors, this builtin automatically falls back to mffs on older
; platforms. Thus it appears here in the [always] stanza.
double __builtin_mffsl ();
-MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
+MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {nosoft}
; This is redundant with __builtin_pack_ibm128, as it requires long
; double to be __ibm128. Should probably be deprecated.
@@ -226,10 +226,10 @@
MFTB rs6000_mftb_di {32bit}
void __builtin_mtfsb0 (const int<0,31>);
-MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {}
+MTFSB0 rs6000_mtfsb0 {nosoft}
void __builtin_mtfsb1 (const int<0,31>);
-MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {}
+MTFSB1 rs6000_mtfsb1 {nosoft}
void __builtin_mtfsf (const int<0,255>, double);
MTFSF rs6000_mtfsf {}
@@ -238,7 +238,7 @@
PACK_IF packif {}
void __builtin_set_fpscr_rn (const int[0,3]);
-SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {}
+SET_FPSCR_RN rs6000_set_fpscr_rn {nosoft}
const double __builtin_unpack_ibm128 (__ibm128, const int<0,1>);
UNPACK_IF unpackif {}
@@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@
PACK_TD packtd {}
void __builtin_set_fpscr_drn (const int[0,7]);
-SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {}
+SET_FPSCR_DRN rs6000_set_fpscr_drn {nosoft,no32bit}
const unsigned long long __builtin_unpack_dec128 (_Decimal128, \
const int<0,1>);
--
2.27.0
