‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:06 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:22:09PM +, GT wrote:
> > I have not been able to configure protonmail for either git imap-send or
> > send-email.
>
> Do you use git format-patch? You should, as th
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> > If/when it becomes necessary to have 'c' variants of functions, then a new
>> > version of
>> > the Vector Function ABI document will be created. And GLIBC and GCC
>> > modifications to
>> > comply with t
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 24, 2020 10:20 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> So, I can answer a small amount of this, but I will say that overall, design
> or implementation documentation seems to be between lacking and nonexistent.
>
> This has to do with "#pragma omp simd" and
On 2/24/20 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:04:55AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
+ if (clonei->simdlen
+ && (clonei->simdlen < 2
+ || clonei->simdlen > 1024
Assuming that clonei->simdlen matches "vector length" in the ABI, 1024 is
too large a number. We can
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:04:55AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > + if (clonei->simdlen
> > + && (clonei->simdlen < 2
> > + || clonei->simdlen > 1024
>
> Assuming that clonei->simdlen matches "vector length" in the ABI, 1024 is
> too large a number. We can have at most 8 vector registe
dy is empty.
Bert.
From 1e8feec5e90ff1a879849714c8d2ea143e77e154 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bert Tenjy
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:31:53 -0600
Subject: [RFC PATCH v0] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecure Vector Function
ABI.
The Vector Function ABI document is tentatively located at:
&
On 2/23/20 1:12 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Though I'm usually uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road on these
sorts of things, I can probably be convinced in this case. Tulio and I were
wondering why the libmvec interf
On 2/23/20 11:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:42:17AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Have I missed something crucial?
I haven't seen anything in the patch that would only enable it for ELFv2,
and while powerpc64le-linux probably assumes TARGET_VSX unconditionally
(haven't v
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Though I'm usually uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road on these
> sorts of things, I can probably be convinced in this case. Tulio and I were
> wondering why the libmvec interface doesn't make use of ifunc capability for
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:42:17AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > Have I missed something crucial?
> > I haven't seen anything in the patch that would only enable it for ELFv2,
> > and while powerpc64le-linux probably assumes TARGET_VSX unconditionally
> > (haven't verified), powerpc64-linux or p
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:55:53AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > If/when it becomes necessary to have 'c' variants of functions, then a new
> > version of
> > the Vector Function ABI document will be created. And GLIBC and GCC
> > modifications to
> > comply with that new ABI will be made then.
On 2/20/20 1:14 PM, GT wrote:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html
As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX fu
On 2/14/20 4:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote:
Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
unrelate
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> > The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion:
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html
> > As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX functionality is that s
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, GT wrote:
> What more needs to be done other than documenting the GLIBC and GCC
> versions for which 'b' and 'c' vector versions are available? It is how
> x86_64 explained the differences between Examples 1 and 2 at
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/libmvec
This is abou
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 5:52 PM, Joseph Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, GT wrote:
>
> > 1. In the Vector Function ABI document, under section "Vector Function
> > Name Mangling", state that all vector variants will be created by
> > the co
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, GT wrote:
> 1. In the Vector Function ABI document, under section "Vector Function
> Name Mangling", state that all vector variants will be created by
> the compiler. And that it will be up to the caller of vectorized
> functions to select the preferred version ('b' or 'c'
On 2/19/20 1:10 PM, GT wrote:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html
As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:33 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> >
> > The reason 'c' was added to the ABI is this mailing list discussion:
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00765.html
> > As long as 'b' specifies that the VSX functionality is th
Sorry I missed this discussion until now, I have been out of the office
much of the last week.
On 2/16/20 2:10 PM, GT wrote:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, February 14, 2020 5:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote:
Funct
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 3:10 PM, GT wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 5:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote:
> >
> > > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adju
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:22:09PM +, GT wrote:
> > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> > > view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
> > > unrelated to rs6000.c in order
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, February 14, 2020 5:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote:
>
> > > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> > > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, February 14, 2020 6:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote:
>
> > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> >
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote:
> Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
> unrelated to rs6000.c in order to avoid having
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:02:39PM +, GT wrote:
> > > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> > > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> > > view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
> > > unrelated to rs6000.c in order
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, February 14, 2020 3:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote:
>
> > Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> > cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> > view,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:24:30PM +, GT wrote:
> Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
> cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
> view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
> unrelated to rs6000.c in order to avoid having
Function rs6000_simd_clone_adjust, even though it's body is empty,
cannot simply be removed. I tried it. It resulted in ICE. In my
view, leaving it empty is preferable to modifying other files
unrelated to rs6000.c in order to avoid having a function whose
body is empty.
Bert.
0001-PPC64-Impleme
29 matches
Mail list logo
