Re: [PATCH] s390: Fix builtins vec_rli and verll

2023-09-11 Thread Andreas Krebbel via Gcc-patches
On 9/11/23 08:56, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> do you really need to introduce a new flag for U64 given that the type of >> the builtin is unsigned long? > > In function s390_const_operand_ok the immediat

Re: [PATCH] s390: Fix builtins vec_rli and verll

2023-09-10 Thread Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > do you really need to introduce a new flag for U64 given that the type of the > builtin is unsigned long? In function s390_const_operand_ok the immediate is checked whether it is valide w.r.t. the flag: tree_to_

Re: [PATCH] s390: Fix builtins vec_rli and verll

2023-08-28 Thread Andreas Krebbel via Gcc-patches
Hi Stefan, do you really need to introduce a new flag for U64 given that the type of the builtin is unsigned long? Andreas On 8/21/23 17:56, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote: > The second argument of these builtins is an unsigned immediate. For > vec_rli the API allows immediates up to 64 bit

[PATCH] s390: Fix builtins vec_rli and verll

2023-08-21 Thread Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches
The second argument of these builtins is an unsigned immediate. For vec_rli the API allows immediates up to 64 bits whereas the instruction verll only allows immediates up to 32 bits. Since the shift count equals the immediate modulo vector element size, truncating those immediates is fine. Boot