Tested on top of master (e0b8716f53ed6455e9f18931940141692793068d)
using --enable-checking=yes,rtl, on the following plataforms with no
regression:
- powerpc64le-linux-gnu (Power 9)
- powerpc64le-linux-gnu (Power 8)
- powerpc64-linux-gnu (Power 9, with 32 and 64 bits tests)
I did not include
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:35:47PM +0100, AL gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 06:24:11PM -0300, Raoni Fassina Firmino wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 02:29:39PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > Adding the patch author for his information.
> >
> > Thanks Bill.
> >
> > > On 1/24/22 2
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 02:29:39PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Adding the patch author for his information.
Thanks Bill.
> On 1/24/22 2:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > expand_builtin_feclear_feraise_except doesn't check if op0 matches
> > the predicate of operands[1], the backend
Changes since v8[8]:
- Refactored and expanded builtin-feclearexcept-feraiseexcept-2.c
testcase:
+ Use a macro to avoid extended repetition of the core test code.
+ Expanded the test code to check builtins return code.
+ Added more tests to test all valid (standard) exceptions inp
Changes since v7[7]:
- Fixed an array indexing bug on fegeround testcase.
- Fixed typos and spelling mistakes spread trouout the added comments.
- Reworded header comment/description for fegetround expander.
- Fixed changelog in the commit message.
After taking a look to add support for FE
Sorry, sent an incomplete email. it was missing this part:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 03:12:32PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > +;; int fegetround(void)
> > +;;
> > +;; This expansion for the C99 function only expands for compatible
> > +;; target libcs. Because it needs to return one of FE_DOW
Hi Segher,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 03:12:32PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 08:48:47PM -0300, Raoni Fassina Firmino wrote:
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > * builtins.c (expand_builtin_fegetround): New function.
> > (expand_builtin_feclear_feraise_except
Changes since v6[6] and v5[5]:
- Based this version on the v5 one.
- Reworked all builtins back to the way they are in v5 and added the
following changes:
+ Added a test to target libc, only expanding with glibc as the
target libc.
+ Updated all three expanders header comment
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the detailed review and explanations.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 03:54:53PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> However, it's better to get things right automatically without needing any
> macros or other header additions at all. That is, define feclearexcept as
> a built-in functi
Changes since v5[5]:
- Reworked all builtins to accept the FE_* macros as parameters and
so be agnostic to libc implementations. Largely based of
fpclassify. To that end, there is some new files changed:
+ Change the argument list for the builtins declarations in
builtins.def
ross compile, so a configure test may not do what we
> need. In fact, ISTM that there is no reliable configure or compile time
> check we can do since the constants are part of the runtime and can
> change independently of the compiler.
>From other subthreads Joseph and segher mentio
12:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 11/4/20 8:10 AM, Raoni Fassina Firmino via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>&g
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > +/* Expand call EXP to the fegetround builtin (from C99 fenv.h), returning
> > the
> > + result and setting it in TARGET. Otherwise return NULL_RTX on failure.
> > */
> > +static rtx
> > +expand_builtin_fegetround (tree exp,
I am repeating the "changelog" from v3 and v4 here because v4 and v5
have just minor changes since v3.
Changes since v4[1]:
- Fixed more spelling and code style.
- Add more clarification on comments for feraiseexcept and
feclearexcept expands;
Changes since v3[2]:
- Fixed fegetround bu
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:03:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> For raising invalid we could perhaps set VXSOFT, but is that okay for
> other libcs than just glibc? So that can be a future improvement if it
> turns out to be useful, as we discussed elsewhere.
Yeap.
> With those tweaks, the
I am repeating the "changelog" from v3 here because v4 is just one
bugfix. I also tested on BE systems for v4.
Changes since v3[1]:
- Fixed fegetround bug on powerpc64 (big endian) that Segher
spotted;
Changes since v2[2]:
- Added documentation for the new optabs;
- Remove use of non po
Changes since v2[1]:
- Added documentation for the new optabs;
- Remove use of non portable __builtin_clz;
- Changed feclearexcept and feraiseexcept to accept all 4 valid
flags at the same time and added more test for that case;
- Extended feclearexcept and feraiseexcept testcases to ma
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:42:13AM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> > +/* Expand call EXP to either feclearexcept or feraiseexcept builtins (from
> > C99
> > +fenv.h), returning the result and setting it in TARGET. Otherwise
> > return
> > +NULL_RTX on failure. */
> > +static rtx
> > +expan
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:36:22AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Should this pattern not allow setting more than one exception bit at
> once, btw?
Turns out allowing more than one bit was no problem at all.
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:36:22AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:08:19PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 08:08:01AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > It's going to be challenging to find a reasonable spot in there.
> > > Oh well.
> >
> > Put it next to fmin
Ping.
Ping.
Changes since v1[1]:
- Fixed english spelling;
- Fixed code-style;
- Changed match operand predicate in feclearexcept and feraiseexcept;
- Changed testcase options;
- Minor changes in test code to be C90 compatible;
- Other minor changes sugested by Segher;
- Changed subject line tag
Hi,
I am about to sent a v2, but thought to reply here as well.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:09:21PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:54:23PM -0300, Raoni Fassina Firmino via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> > So, this patch adds new rs6000 expand
Hi All,
I sent an initial RFC of this patch[1] some time ago. I believe it is
now in a complete state, with added the test cases for the builtins.
The builtin optimizations presented here were originally in glibc, but
were removed and suggested that they were a good fit as gcc
builtins[2].
So,
Hi all,
This is an early draft I'm working on to add fegetround , feclearexcept
and feraiseexcept as builtins on rs6000. This is my first patch so I
welcome any and all feedback. Foremost I have some questions to ask as
I got stuck on some problems.
Q1) How to implement a target specific buil
26 matches
Mail list logo
