Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Hi Thomas, thanks for your answers. I am ok with the patch. - Andre On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:07:31 +0200 Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hello Andre and everybody else? > > Any more comments on the matmul patch? The other ones depend on > it, so I would like to commit (unless there are further > question

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Hello Andre and everybody else? Any more comments on the matmul patch? The other ones depend on it, so I would like to commit (unless there are further questions, of course). Best regards Thomas

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Hi Andre, diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc index 66a3635404a..a214b8bc1b3 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc @@ -711,17 +711,9 @@ gfc_arith_uminus (gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr **resultp) case BT_UNSIGNED: { if (pedantic) -

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Hi Thomas, unfortunately I have some questions. Most of them are for my understanding. > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc > index 66a3635404a..a214b8bc1b3 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc > +++ b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc > @@ -711,17 +711,9 @@ gfc_arith_uminus (gfc_expr *op

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Am 09.09.24 um 20:01 schrieb Richard Biener: But it will require some ugly m4 hackery... I'll take a look if I can make it work. > I meant you shouldn’t need new library entry points for unsigned > but simply call the signed ones (and switch the signed implementation > to use unsigned arithmet

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

> Am 09.09.2024 um 19:09 schrieb Thomas Koenig : > > Am 09.09.24 um 09:19 schrieb Richard Biener: >> Is the library implementation in any way different from the signed >> one? Iff only >> multiplication and addition/subtraction are involved the unsigned >> implementation >> could implement b

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

Am 09.09.24 um 09:19 schrieb Richard Biener: Is the library implementation in any way different from the signed one? Iff only multiplication and addition/subtraction are involved the unsigned implementation could implement both variants (the signed one would eventually cause undefinedness with r

Re: [patch, fortran] Matmul and dot_product for unsigned

On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 10:32 PM Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hello world, > > like the subject says. The patch is gzipped because it is large; > it contains multiple MATMUL library implementations. > > OK for trunk? > > Implement MATMUL and DOT_PRODUCT for unsgigned. Is the library implementation in