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 +, GT wrote: > > I have not been able to configure protonmail for either git imap-send or > > send-email. > > Do you use git format-patch? You should, as

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

2020-02-24 Thread Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> > If/when it becomes necessary to have 'c' variants of functions, then a new >> > version of >> > the Vector Function ABI document will be created. And GLIBC and GCC >> > modifications to >> > comply with

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.

2020-02-24 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/24/20 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:04:55AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: +  if (clonei->simdlen +  && (clonei->simdlen < 2 +      || clonei->simdlen > 1024 Assuming that clonei->simdlen matches "vector length" in the ABI, 1024 is too large a number. We can

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

2020-02-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:04:55AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > +  if (clonei->simdlen > > +  && (clonei->simdlen < 2 > > +      || clonei->simdlen > 1024 > > Assuming that clonei->simdlen matches "vector length" in the ABI, 1024 is > too large a number. We can have at most 8 vector

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

2020-02-24 Thread Bill Schmidt
is empty. Bert. From 1e8feec5e90ff1a879849714c8d2ea143e77e154 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bert Tenjy Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:31:53 -0600 Subject: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function  ABI. The Vector Function ABI document is tentatively located at: <ht

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

2020-02-24 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/23/20 1:12 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: Though I'm usually uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road on these sorts of things, I can probably be convinced in this case. Tulio and I were wondering why the libmvec

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

2020-02-24 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/23/20 11:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:42:17AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: Have I missed something crucial? I haven't seen anything in the patch that would only enable it for ELFv2, and while powerpc64le-linux probably assumes TARGET_VSX unconditionally (haven't

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

2020-02-23 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Though I'm usually uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road on these > sorts of things, I can probably be convinced in this case. Tulio and I were > wondering why the libmvec interface doesn't make use of ifunc capability for

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

2020-02-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:42:17AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > Have I missed something crucial? > > I haven't seen anything in the patch that would only enable it for ELFv2, > > and while powerpc64le-linux probably assumes TARGET_VSX unconditionally > > (haven't verified), powerpc64-linux or

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

2020-02-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > If/when it becomes necessary to have 'c' variants of functions, then a new > > version of > > the Vector Function ABI document will be created. And GLIBC and GCC > > modifications to > > comply with that new ABI will be made then.

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

2020-02-23 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/20/20 1:14 PM, GT wrote: ‐‐‐ 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

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

2020-02-23 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/14/20 4:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote: 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

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 Joseph Myers
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, GT wrote: > What more needs to be done other than documenting the GLIBC and GCC > versions for which 'b' and 'c' vector versions are available? It is how > x86_64 explained the differences between Examples 1 and 2 at > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/libmvec This is

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 vector variants will be created by > > the

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

2020-02-19 Thread Joseph Myers
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, GT wrote: > 1. In the Vector Function ABI document, under section "Vector Function > Name Mangling", state that all vector variants will be created by > the compiler. And that it will be up to the caller of vectorized > functions to select the preferred version ('b' or

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

2020-02-19 Thread Bill Schmidt
On 2/19/20 1:10 PM, GT wrote: ‐‐‐ 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

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 Bill Schmidt
Sorry I missed this discussion until now, I have been out of the office much of the last week. On 2/16/20 2:10 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:

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: > > > > > > > Function

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

2020-02-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:22:09PM +, GT wrote: > > > 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

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 +, GT wrote: > > > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty, > > > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted

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 +, GT wrote: > > > 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 > >

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

2020-02-14 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote: > 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

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

2020-02-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote: > > > 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

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 +, GT wrote: > > > 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,

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

2020-02-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote: > 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

[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.