on 2021/6/25 上午3:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> 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).
>
Yeah, thanks for the note. It looks better to update the generic
macro with this ppc style "__" writting and remove ppc one. :-)
One related bug PR101235 was just opened, I noticed the culprit commit
was backported to GCC11, is it OK to backport this fix to GCC 11 if
everything goes well in one more week?
BR,
Kewen
