在 2023-08-18五的 15:19 +0800，Xi Ruoyao写道：
> On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 15:05 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 14:58 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 14:39 +0800, chenxiaolong wrote:
> > > > 在 2023-08-17四的 15:08 +0000，Joseph Myers写道：
> > > > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So I guess we just need
> > > > > >
> > > > > > builtin_define ("__builtin_fabsq=__builtin_fabsf128");
> > > > > > builtin_define ("__builtin_nanq=__builtin_nanf128");
> > > > > >
> > > > > > etc. to map the "q" builtins to "f128" builtins if we
> > > > > > really need
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > "q" builtins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joseph: the problem here is many customers of LoongArch
> > > > > > CPUs wish
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > compile their old code with minimal change. Is it
> > > > > > acceptable to
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > these builtin_define's like rs6000-c.cc? Note "a new
> > > > > > architecture"
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > not mean we'll only compile post-C2x-era programs onto it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The powerpc support for __float128 started in GCC 6,
> > > > > predating the
> > > > > support
> > > > > for _FloatN type names, built-in functions etc. in GCC 7 -
> > > > > that's
> > > > > why
> > > > > there's such backwards compatibility support there. That
> > > > > name only
> > > > > exists
> > > > > on a few architectures.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people really want to compile code using the old
> > > > > __float128 names
> > > > > for
> > > > > LoongArch I suppose you could have such #defines, but it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > better
> > > > > for people to make their code use the standard names (as
> > > > > supported
> > > > > from
> > > > > GCC 7 onwards, though only from GCC 13 in C++) and then put
> > > > > backwards
> > > > > compatibility in their code for using the __float128 names if
> > > > > they
> > > > > want to
> > > > > support the type with older GCC (GCC 6 or before for C; GCC
> > > > > 12 or
> > > > > before
> > > > > for C++) on x86_64 / i386 / powerpc / ia64. Such backwards
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > in user code is more likely to be relevant for C++ than for
> > > > > C, given
> > > > > how
> > > > > the C++ support was added to GCC much more recently. (Note:
> > > > > I
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > checked when other compilers added support for the _Float128
> > > > > name or
> > > > > associated built-in functions, whether for C or for C++,
> > > > > which might
> > > > > also
> > > > > affect when user code wants such compatibility.)
> > > > >
> > > > Thank you for your valuable comments. On the LoongArch
> > > > architecture,
> > > > the "__float128" type is associated with float128_type_node and
> > > > the "q"
> > > > suffix function is mapped to the "f128" function. This allows
> > > > compatibility with both "__float128" and "_Float128" types in
> > > > the GCC
> > > > compiler. The new code is modified as follows:
> > > > Add the following to the loongarch-builtins.c file:
> > > > +lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (float128_type_node,
> > > > "__float128");
> > > > Add the following to the loongarch-c.c file:
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_fabsq=__builtin_fabsf128");
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_copysignq=__builtin_copysignf128");
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_nanq=__builtin_nanf128");
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_nansq=__builtin_nansf128");
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_infq=__builtin_inff128");
> > > > +builtin_define ("__builtin_huge_valq=__builtin_huge_valf128");
> > > >
> > > > The regression tests of the six functions were added without
> > > > problems.
> > > > However, the implementation of the __builtin_nansq() function
> > > > does not
> > > > get the result we want. The questions are as follows:
> > > > x86_64:
> > > > _Float128 ret=__builtin_nansf128("NAN");
> > > >
> > > > compiled to (with gcc test.c -O2 ):
> > > > .cfi_offset 1, -8
> > > > bl %plt(__builtin_nansf128)
> > > > ..
> > > > LoongArch:
> > > > _Float128 ret=__builtin_nansf128("NAN");
> > > > compiled to (with gcc test.c -O2 ):
> > > > .cfi_offset 1, -8
> > > > bl %plt(__builtin_nansf128)
> > >
> > > It seems wrong. It should be "bl %plt(nansf128)" instead,
> > > without the
> > > __builtin_ prefix so the implementation in libm (from Glibc) will
> > > be
> > > used instead. AFAIK __builtin_nan and __builtin_nans are rarely
> > > called
> > > with a non-empty tagp so it's not worthy to inline the
> > > implementation
> > > for non-empty tagp here.
> > >
> > > The same issue happens on x86_64:
> > >
> > > call __builtin_nansf128@PLT
> > >
> > > __builtin_nanf128 compiles correct:
> > >
> > > call nanf128@PLT
> > >
> > > I'll see if there is a ticket in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla.
> > > If not
> > > I'll create one.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/PR111058
>
> > Alright, Glibc does not have a "nansf128" function yet. Actually
> > there
> > is even no "nans" function for the plain double type. So even a
> > plain
> > __builtin_nans("114") won't work too.
> >
> > If we'll fix this, we need to do it in a generic, target-
> > independent way
> > (i. e. fix it all at once for all targets).
> >
> > So for now, and for LoongArch specific code, the proper thing to do
> > is
> > aliasing float128_type_node as __float128 and the six
> > __builtin_define's.
> >
> > Please commit them to trunk if regression test passes. You need to
> > also
> > add LoongArch as a target supporting __float128 in extend.texi.
Ok, I will properly analyze the implementation of the buildin relatedfunctions
and fix this issue as soon as possible.
