On Thu, 2026-04-30 at 22:21 -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 05:50:12PM +0530, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 30/04/26 3:15 PM, Avinash Jayakar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks for the review of the documentation. I have incorporated > > > the changes > > > requested. > > > > > > Changes from v3: > > > * Addressed review comments regarding ISA version. > > > * Updated AES builtin description in extend.text. > > > > > > Changes from v2: > > > * Added extend.texi documentation for the new builtins. > > > > > > Changes from v1: > > > * Update commit message. > > > * Add comments for iterators/attributes in crypto.md. > > > * Corrected formatting in crypto.md. > > > * Removed mma attribute for aes builtins. > > > * Updated function names in aes-builtin-1.c. > > > * aes-builtin-1.c now has 1 builtin per function. > > > * Separated out the combined builtin test case in aes-builtin- > > > 3.c. > > > > > > Following patch depends on these 2 patches in the following > > > order: > > > 1. mcpu=future: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-December/703739.html > > > 2. future builtin infra: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-March/709782.html > > > Let us keep the above 2 paragraphs before the list of builtins. > > This is because following the list of aes builtins, we will have > > another section for other builtins such as for ECC. > > So before the list of builtins, we can write as: > > > > Future ISA of the PowerPC may add new instructions for accelerating > > AES > > algorithm. GCC provides support for these new instructions through > > the > > following built-in functions. The third argument to > > @var{__builtin_aes_encrypt_paired} and > > @var{__builtin_aes_decrypt_paired} must be a constant integer that > > is 0, 1 or 2. The values correspond to 128, 192 and 256 bit AES > > encryption/decryption respectively. > > The third argument to @var{__builtin_galois_field_mult} must be a > > constant > > integer that is 0 or 1. The values correspond to gcm and xts > > variant respectively. > > > > > > With this change, the patch looks fine to me. I cannot approve for > > upstreaming however. > > I agree with Surya. Assuming you add something similar to the > verbage > that Surya suggested, and the 2 needed patches have been applied, > this > patch can go in once GCC 16.1 is released.
Thanks for approving this. Can I backport it to gcc 16? Regards, Avinash Jayakar
