Hi,
on 2024/4/20 05:17, Carl Love wrote:
> rs6000, add overloaded vec_sel with int128 arguments
>
> Extend the vec_sel built-in to take three signed/unsigned int128 arguments
> and return a signed/unsigned int128 result.
>
> Extending the vec_sel built-in makes the existing buit-ins
> __builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti and __builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti_uns obsolete. The
> patch removes these built-ins.
>
> The patch adds documentation and test cases for the new overloaded vec_sel
> built-ins.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def (__builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti,
> __builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti_uns): Remove built-in definitions.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def (vec_sel): Add new overloaded
> definitions.
> * doc/extend.texi: Add documentation for new vec_sel arguments.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vec_sel_runnable-int128.c: New test file.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 6 --
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def | 4 +
> gcc/doc/extend.texi | 14 ++++
> .../powerpc/vec-sel-runnable-i128.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-sel-runnable-i128.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> index d09e21a9151..46d2ae7b7cb 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
> @@ -1931,12 +1931,6 @@
> const vuc __builtin_vsx_xxsel_16qi_uns (vuc, vuc, vuc);
> XXSEL_16QI_UNS vector_select_v16qi_uns {}
>
> - const vsq __builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti (vsq, vsq, vsq);
> - XXSEL_1TI vector_select_v1ti {}
> -
> - const vsq __builtin_vsx_xxsel_1ti_uns (vsq, vsq, vsq);
> - XXSEL_1TI_UNS vector_select_v1ti_uns {}
> -
> const vd __builtin_vsx_xxsel_2df (vd, vd, vd);
> XXSEL_2DF vector_select_v2df {}
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def
> index 68501c05289..5912c9452f4 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def
> @@ -3274,6 +3274,10 @@
> VSEL_2DF VSEL_2DF_B
> vd __builtin_vec_sel (vd, vd, vull);
> VSEL_2DF VSEL_2DF_U
> + vsq __builtin_vec_sel (vsq, vsq, vsq);
> + VSEL_1TI VSEL_1TI_S
> + vuq __builtin_vec_sel (vuq, vuq, vuq);
> + VSEL_1TI_UNS VSEL_1TI_U
> ; The following variants are deprecated.
> vsll __builtin_vec_sel (vsll, vsll, vsll);
> VSEL_2DI_B VSEL_2DI_S
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> index 64a43b55e2d..86b8e536dbe 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> @@ -23358,6 +23358,20 @@ The programmer is responsible for understanding the
> endianness issues involved
> with the first argument and the result.
> @findex vec_replace_unaligned
>
> +Vector select
> +
> +@smallexample
> +vector signed __int128 vec_sel (vector signed __int128,
> + vector signed __int128, vector signed __int128);
> +vector unsigned __int128 vec_sel (vector unsigned __int128,
> + vector unsigned __int128, vector unsigned __int128);
> +@end smallexample
> +
> +The overloaded built-in @code{vec_sel} with vector signed/unsigned __int128
> +arguments and returns a vector selecting bits from the two source vectors
> based
> +on the values of the third input vector. This built-in is an extension of
> the
> +@code{vec_sel} built-in documented in the PVIPR.
> +
Why did you place this in a section for ISA 3.1 (Power10)? It doesn't really
require this support. The used instance VSEL_1TI and VSEL_1TI_UNS are placed
in altivec stanza, so it looks that we should put it under the section
"PowerPC AltiVec Built-in Functions on ISA 2.05". And since it's an extension
of @code{vec_sel} documented in the PVIPR, I prefer to just mention it's "an
extension of the @code{vec_sel} built-in documented in the PVIPR" and omitting
the description to avoid possible slightly different wording.
> Vector Shift Left Double Bit Immediate
> @smallexample
> @exdent vector signed char vec_sldb (vector signed char, vector signed char,
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-sel-runnable-i128.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-sel-runnable-i128.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..58eb383e8c3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-sel-runnable-i128.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
> +/* { dg-do run { target power10_hw }} */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target power10_hw } */
As mentioned above, this doesn't require power10, you can specify vmx_hw.
(btw removing { target power10_hw } on dg-do run line).
> +/* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power10 -save-temps" } */
s/-mdejagnu-cpu=power10/-maltivec/
s/-save-temps//
> +
> +
> +#include <altivec.h>
> +
> +
> +#define DEBUG 0
> +
> +#if DEBUG
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +void print_i128 (unsigned __int128 val)
> +{
> + printf(" 0x%016llx%016llx",
> + (unsigned long long)(val >> 64),
> + (unsigned long long)(val & 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF));
> +}
> +#endif
Did you really test this debugging work as expected?
With my experience when making r14-10011-g6e62ede7aaccc6,
this debugging doesn't work and the way to initialize
a vector int128 variable can easily suffer from endianness
issue, so please double check this and test it on BE as well.
BR,
Kewen
> +
> +extern void abort (void);
> +
> +int
> +main (int argc, char *argv [])
> +{
> + vector signed __int128 src_va_s128;
> + vector signed __int128 src_vb_s128;
> + vector signed __int128 src_vc_s128;
> + vector signed __int128 vresult_s128;
> + vector signed __int128 expected_vresult_s128;
> +
> + vector unsigned __int128 src_va_u128;
> + vector unsigned __int128 src_vb_u128;
> + vector unsigned __int128 src_vc_u128;
> + vector unsigned __int128 vresult_u128;
> + vector unsigned __int128 expected_vresult_u128;
> +
> + src_va_s128 = (vector signed __int128) {0x123456789ABCDEF0};
> + src_vb_s128 = (vector signed __int128) {0xFEDCBA9876543210};
> + src_vc_s128 = (vector signed __int128) {0x3333333333333333};
> + expected_vresult_s128 = (vector signed __int128) {0x32147658ba9cfed0};
> +
> + /* Signed arguments. */
> + vresult_s128 = vec_sel (src_va_s128, src_vb_s128, src_vc_s128);
> +
> + if (!vec_all_eq (vresult_s128, expected_vresult_s128))
> +#if DEBUG
> + {
> + printf ("ERROR, vec_sel (src_va_s128, src_vb_s128, src_vc_s128) result
> does not match expected output.\n");
> + printf (" Result: ");
> + print_i128 ((unsigned __int128) vresult_s128);
> + printf ("\n Expected result: ");
> + print_i128 ((unsigned __int128) expected_vresult_s128);
> + printf ("\n");
> + }
> +#else
> + abort ();
> +#endif
> +
> + src_va_u128 = (vector unsigned __int128) {0x13579ACE02468BDF};
> + src_vb_u128 = (vector unsigned __int128) {0xA987654FEDCB3210};
> + src_vc_u128 = (vector unsigned __int128) {0x5555555555555555};
> + expected_vresult_u128 = (vector unsigned __int128) {0x32147658ba9cfed0};
> +
> + /* Unigned arguments. */
> + vresult_u128 = vec_sel (src_va_u128, src_vb_u128, src_vc_u128);
> +
> + if (!vec_all_eq (vresult_u128, expected_vresult_u128))
> +#if DEBUG
> + {
> + printf ("ERROR, vec_sel (src_va_u128, src_vb_u128, src_vc_u128) result
> does not match expected output.\n");
> + printf (" Result: ");
> + print_i128 ((unsigned __int128) vresult_u128);
> + printf ("\n Expected result: ");
> + print_i128 ((unsigned __int128) expected_vresult_u128);
> + printf ("\n");
> + }
> +#else
> + abort ();
> +#endif
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
