On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Patch in the bottom allows to use ymmXX and zmmXX
> register names in inline asm statements as well as
> in `register` variables definitions.
>
> New tests pass.
> Bootstrap pass.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
> Do we need to backport it to 4.8?
>
> gcc/
> * config/i386/i386.h (ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES): Add
> ymm and zmm register names.
>
> testsuite/
> * gcc.target/i386/avx-additional-reg-names.c: New.
> * gcc.target/i386/avx512f-additional-reg-names.c: Ditto.
>
> --
> Thanks, K
>
> commit c3884af93c105115bc1e4d02fa824d24420c5bbf
> Author: Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yuk...@intel.com>
> Date: Mon Mar 17 14:56:06 2014 +0400
>
> [AVX, AVX-512]. Extend ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES to Ymms and Zmms.
> ---
> gcc/config/i386/i386.h | 28
> +++++++++++++++++-----
> .../gcc.target/i386/avx-additional-reg-names.c | 9 +++++++
> .../gcc.target/i386/avx512f-additional-reg-names.c | 9 +++++++
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> index c80878b..c5c1d58 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> @@ -2016,12 +2016,28 @@ do {
> \
> /* Table of additional register names to use in user input. */
>
> #define ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES \
> -{ { "eax", 0 }, { "edx", 1 }, { "ecx", 2 }, { "ebx", 3 }, \
> - { "esi", 4 }, { "edi", 5 }, { "ebp", 6 }, { "esp", 7 }, \
> - { "rax", 0 }, { "rdx", 1 }, { "rcx", 2 }, { "rbx", 3 }, \
> - { "rsi", 4 }, { "rdi", 5 }, { "rbp", 6 }, { "rsp", 7 }, \
> - { "al", 0 }, { "dl", 1 }, { "cl", 2 }, { "bl", 3 }, \
> - { "ah", 0 }, { "dh", 1 }, { "ch", 2 }, { "bh", 3 } }
> +{ { "eax", 0 }, { "edx", 1 }, { "ecx", 2 }, { "ebx", 3 }, \
> + { "esi", 4 }, { "edi", 5 }, { "ebp", 6 }, { "esp", 7 }, \
> + { "rax", 0 }, { "rdx", 1 }, { "rcx", 2 }, { "rbx", 3 }, \
> + { "rsi", 4 }, { "rdi", 5 }, { "rbp", 6 }, { "rsp", 7 }, \
> + { "al", 0 }, { "dl", 1 }, { "cl", 2 }, { "bl", 3 }, \
> + { "ah", 0 }, { "dh", 1 }, { "ch", 2 }, { "bh", 3 }, \
> + { "ymm0", 21}, { "ymm1", 22}, { "ymm2", 23}, { "ymm3", 24}, \
> + { "ymm4", 25}, { "ymm5", 26}, { "ymm6", 27}, { "ymm7", 28}, \
> + { "ymm8", 45}, { "ymm9", 46}, { "ymm10", 47}, { "ymm11", 48},
> \
> + { "ymm12", 49}, { "ymm13", 50}, { "ymm14", 51}, { "ymm15", 52}, \
> + { "ymm16", 53}, { "ymm17", 54}, { "ymm18", 55}, { "ymm19", 56}, \
> + { "ymm20", 57}, { "ymm21", 58}, { "ymm22", 59}, { "ymm23", 60}, \
> + { "ymm24", 61}, { "ymm25", 62}, { "ymm26", 63}, { "ymm27", 64}, \
> + { "ymm28", 65}, { "ymm29", 66}, { "ymm30", 67}, { "ymm31", 68}, \
> + { "zmm0", 21}, { "zmm1", 22}, { "zmm2", 23}, { "zmm3", 24}, \
> + { "zmm4", 25}, { "zmm5", 26}, { "zmm6", 27}, { "zmm7", 28}, \
> + { "zmm8", 45}, { "zmm9", 46}, { "zmm10", 47}, { "zmm11", 48},
> \
> + { "zmm12", 49}, { "zmm13", 50}, { "zmm14", 51}, { "zmm15", 52}, \
> + { "zmm16", 53}, { "zmm17", 54}, { "zmm18", 55}, { "zmm19", 56}, \
> + { "zmm20", 57}, { "zmm21", 58}, { "zmm22", 59}, { "zmm23", 60}, \
> + { "zmm24", 61}, { "zmm25", 62}, { "zmm26", 63}, { "zmm27", 64}, \
> + { "zmm28", 65}, { "zmm29", 66}, { "zmm30", 67}, { "zmm31", 68} }
>
> /* Note we are omitting these since currently I don't know how
> to get gcc to use these, since they want the same but different
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-additional-reg-names.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-additional-reg-names.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d984bff
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-additional-reg-names.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-mavx" } */
> +
> +void foo ()
> +{
> + register int ymm_var asm ("ymm4");
> +
> + __asm__ __volatile__("vxorpd %%ymm0, %%ymm0, %%ymm7\n" : : : "ymm7" );
> +}
Doesn't GCC generate the same code with xmm?
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-additional-reg-names.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-additional-reg-names.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1bd428a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-additional-reg-names.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-mavx512f" } */
> +
> +void foo ()
> +{
> + register int zmm_var asm ("zmm9");
> +
> + __asm__ __volatile__("vxorpd %%zmm0, %%zmm0, %%zmm7\n" : : : "zmm7" );
> +}
Doesn't GCC generate the same code with xmm?
--
H.J.
