On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> On 19 Nov 15:36, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Please also add new command options to g++.dg/other/sse-2.C and
>> g++.dg/other/sse-3.C
> Done (to i386-[23].C).
>> > --mavx2 -mavx512f -mavx512pf -mavx512er -mavx512cd @gol
>> > +-mavx2 -mavx512f -mavx512pf -mavx512er -mavx512cd -msha -mno-sha @gol
>>
>> No need to document negative option here.
> Fxed.
>
> I am testing patch in the bootom and will commit it tomorrow if no more inputs
> and testing will pass.
>
> --
> Thanks, K
>
> ---
> gcc/common/config/i386/i386-common.c | 18 ++++-
> gcc/config.gcc | 6 +-
> gcc/config/i386/cpuid.h | 1 +
> gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c | 6 +-
> gcc/config/i386/i386-c.c | 2 +
> gcc/config/i386/i386.c | 46 ++++++++++++-
> gcc/config/i386/i386.h | 2 +
> gcc/config/i386/i386.opt | 4 ++
> gcc/config/i386/immintrin.h | 2 +
> gcc/config/i386/shaintrin.h | 99
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/config/i386/sse.md | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 8 ++-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/i386-2.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/i386-3.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-1.c | 3 +
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/i386.exp | 14 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha-check.h | 37 ++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1msg1-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1msg1-2.c | 42 ++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1msg2-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1msg2-2.c | 44 ++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1nexte-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1nexte-2.c | 36 ++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1rnds4-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha1rnds4-2.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256msg1-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256msg1-2.c | 48 +++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256msg2-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256msg2-2.c | 49 +++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256rnds2-1.c | 13 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sha256rnds2-2.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-13.c | 3 +
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-14.c | 6 +-
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-22.c | 9 ++-
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-23.c | 5 +-
> 35 files changed, 836 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
...
> +
> + /* SHA */
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha1msg1, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA1MSG1,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha1msg2, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA1MSG2,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha1nexte, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA1NEXTE,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha1rnds4, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA1RNDS4,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI_INT },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha256msg1, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA256MSG1,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha256msg2, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA256MSG2,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI },
> + { OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2, CODE_FOR_sha256rnds2, 0, IX86_BUILTIN_SHA256RNDS2,
> UNKNOWN, (int) V4SI_FTYPE_V4SI_V4SI_V4SI },
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE2 intentional?
Should it be OPTION_MASK_ISA_SHA?
> };
>
--
H.J.
