2016-12-05 16:31 GMT+01:00 Andrew Senkevich <andrew.n.senkev...@gmail.com>:
> 2016-11-16 8:02 GMT+03:00 Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Senkevich
>> <andrew.n.senkev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> new Intel instructions AVX512_4FMAPS and AVX512_4VNNIW introduce use
>>> of register groups.
>>>
>>> To support register groups feature in inline asm needed some extension
>>> with new constraints.
>>>
>>> Current proposal is the following syntax:
>>>
>>> __asm__ (“SMTH %[group], %[single]" :
>>> [single]
>>> "+x"(v0) :
>>> [group]
>>> "Yg4"(v1), “1+1"(v2), “1+2"(v3), “1+3"(v4));
>>>
>>> where "YgN" constraint specifies group of N consecutive registers
>>> (which is started from register having number as "0 mod
>>> 2^ceil(log2(N))"),
>>> and "1+K" specifies the next registers in the group.
>>>
>>> Is this syntax ok? How to implement it?
>>
>>
>> Have you looked into how AARCH64 back-end handles this via OI, etc.
>> Like:
>> /* Oct Int: 256-bit integer mode needed for 32-byte vector arguments. */
>> INT_MODE (OI, 32);
>>
>> /* Opaque integer modes for 3 or 4 Neon q-registers / 6 or 8 Neon d-registers
>> (2 d-regs = 1 q-reg = TImode). */
>> INT_MODE (CI, 48);
>> INT_MODE (XI, 64);
>>
>>
>> And then it implements TARGET_ARRAY_MODE_SUPPORTED_P. target hook?
>> And the x2 types are defined as a struct of an array like:
>> typedef struct int8x8x2_t
>> {
>> int8x8_t val[2];
>> } int8x8x2_t;
>
> Thanks!
>
> We have to update proposal with changing "+" symbol to "#" specifying
> offset in a group (to avoid overloading the other meaning of “+”
> specifying that operand is both input and output).
>
> So current proposal of syntax is:
>
> __asm__ (“INSTR %[group], %[single]" :
> [single] "+x"(v0)
> :
> [group]
> "Yg4"(v1), “1#1"(v2), “1#2"(v3), “1#3"(v4));
>
> where "YgN" constraint specifies group of N consecutive registers
> (which is started from register having number as "0 mod 2^ceil(log2(N))"),
> and "1#K" specifies the next registers in the group.
>
> Some other questions or comments?
>
> What about consensus on this syntax?
Hi Richard!
Can we have agreement on this syntax, what do you think?
--
WBR,
Andrew
