On 7/30/20 12:15 PM, will schmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 09:14 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
From: Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com>
2020-07-26 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def: Add power9,
power9-vector, and power9-64 builtins.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def | 354
+++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 354 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
index 2f918c1d69e..1338f543a6a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
@@ -2394,3 +2394,357 @@
XSCVSPDPN vsx_xscvspdpn {}
+; Power9 vector builtins.
+[power9-vector]
+ const vus __builtin_altivec_convert_4f32_8i16 (vf, vf);
+ CONVERT_4F32_8I16 convert_4f32_8i16 {}
+
+ const unsigned int __builtin_altivec_first_match_index_v16qi (vsc,
vsc);
+ VFIRSTMATCHINDEX_V16QI first_match_index_v16qi {}
Noting a "vus" on the previous entry, was/is a define for "ui ==
unsigned int" considered?
Similar question for subsequent types that are still fully spelled out.
(unsigned char, unsigned short, ... )
I did consider it, but I feel there's a balance between keeping the
lines short and keeping them readable. The vector types are egregious
space hogs, so I felt I needed to abbreviate them to avoid line wrap,
but in most cases the scalar variables are fine with normal types. One
of those YMMV situations.
<snip>
+; Miscellaneour P9 functions
Miscellaneous :-)
Thanks :)
<snip>
+
+
+; These things need some review to see whether they really require
+; MASK_POWERPC64. For xsxexpdp, this seems to be fine for 32-bit,
+; because the result will always fit in 32 bits and the return
+; value is SImode; but the pattern currently requires TARGET_64BIT.
+; On the other hand, xsssigdp has a result that doesn't fit in
perhaps xsxsigdp ?
Indeed!
Thanks very much for the review!
Bill
+; 32 bits, and the return value is DImode, so it seems that
+; TARGET_64BIT (actually TARGET_POWERPC64) is justified. TBD. ####
+[power9-64]
+; The following two are inexplicably named __builtin_altivec_* while
+; their load counterparts are __builtin_vsx_*. Need to deprecate
+; these interfaces in favor of the other naming scheme (or vice
versa).
Thanks
-Will
