On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 05:32:20PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2021/6/24 上午12:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:17:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >>>> +#ifdef FLOAT128_HW_INSNS_ISA3_1
> >>>> TFtype __floattikf (TItype_ppc)
> >>>> __attribute__ ((__ifunc__ ("__floattikf_resolve")));
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if we now need TItype_ppc at all anymore, btw?
> >>
> >> Sorry that I don't quite follow this question.
> >
> > I thought it may do the same as just TItype now, but the ifunc stuff
> > probably makes it different still :-)
>
> Ah, thanks for the clarification! If I read it right, TItype is defined
> with __attribute__ ((mode (TI))) while TItype_ppc is defined with
> __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__TI__))), the later writing looks special.
I managed to read things wrong, I thought there was some ifunc stuff in
the definition of TItype_ppc. Of course there is not, it is just
setting the mode.
mode(__TI__) is just the more portable way of writing mode(TI), the
latter will not work if something #define's TI (you cannot do that with
__TI__, you are not allowed to by the C standard, in application code).
So it looks like we could just use {U,}TItype here, no _ppc. Carl, is
there some reason I'm not seeing you used it?
Segher
