================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/BuiltinsPPC.def:220
@@ -204,1 +219,3 @@
BUILTIN(__builtin_altivec_vcmpgtuw_p, "iiV4UiV4Ui", "")
+BUILTIN(__builtin_altivec_vcmpgtsd_p, "iiV2LLiV2LLi", "")
+BUILTIN(__builtin_altivec_vcmpgtud_p, "iiV2ULLiV2ULLi", "")
----------------
Similar comment about the return type.
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:2913
@@ +2912,3 @@
+static vector long long __ATTRS_o_ai
+vec_vmaxsd(vector bool long long __a, vector long long __b)
+{
----------------
The ABI does not list any overloads for vmaxsd and vmaxud builtins other than
the ones that take two vector [un]signed long long. Furthermore, gcc provides
only the single overload as listed in the ABI. Are these for compatibility with
something else?
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:3462
@@ +3461,3 @@
+
+static vector long long __ATTRS_o_ai
+vec_min(vector bool long long __a, vector long long __b)
----------------
Similar comment to the above, both the ABI and gcc provide a single overload
for each signed/unsigned version of this (no vector bool long long parameter
overloads).
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:3640
@@ +3639,3 @@
+static vector long long __ATTRS_o_ai
+vec_vminsd(vector bool long long __a, vector long long __b)
+{
----------------
Same comment about overloads, ABI/gcc have only one.
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:4042
@@ +4041,3 @@
+static vector unsigned long long __attribute__((__always_inline__))
+vec_vmuleuw(vector unsigned int __a, vector unsigned int __b)
+{
----------------
Since the forms that are not type-generic are deprecated in the ABI, do we
really want to add new ones? I suppose that for consistency, this is valuable.
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:4178
@@ +4177,3 @@
+static vector unsigned long long __attribute__((__always_inline__))
+vec_vmulouw(vector unsigned int __a, vector unsigned int __b)
+{
----------------
Similar comment about deprecated forms that are not type-generic.
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:6938
@@ +6937,3 @@
+{
+ return __a >> (vector long long)__b;
+}
----------------
I am probably missing something, but it seems unclear to me how this will
generate the expected instruction. If this code generates an "shr" in the IR
and the back end generates a "vsrd" instruction when it sees the corresponding
builtin, what tells the back end to emit the instruction when it sees a shift
in the IR?
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:11318
@@ +11317,3 @@
+#ifdef __POWER8_VECTOR__
+static long long __ATTRS_o_ai
+vec_all_eq(vector long long __a, vector long long __b)
----------------
Why the change in the return type for these? All the other ones return int,
this one involves a promotion from in to long long. And the return type in the
ABI is int.
================
Comment at: lib/Headers/altivec.h:11325
@@ +11324,3 @@
+static long long __ATTRS_o_ai
+vec_all_eq(vector long long __a, vector bool long long __b)
+{
----------------
Once again, more overloads than the ABI lists. I assume we want these as well.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8041
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
