On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 08:31:01AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-overload.def: Add remaining overloads.
> +; TODO: Note that the entry for VEC_ADDE currently gets ignored in
> +; altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin. Revisit whether we can remove
> +; that. We still need to register the legal builtin forms here.
> +[VEC_ADDE, vec_adde, __builtin_vec_adde]
> + vsq __builtin_vec_adde (vsq, vsq, vsq);
> + VADDEUQM VADDEUQM_VSQ
> + vuq __builtin_vec_adde (vuq, vuq, vuq);
> + VADDEUQM VADDEUQM_VUQ
I'm not sure what this means. "Currently" is the problem I think. Do
you mean that the existing code (before this patch) ignores it already?
> +; #### XVRSPIP{TARGET_VSX};VRFIP
> +[VEC_CEIL, vec_ceil, __builtin_vec_ceil]
> + vf __builtin_vec_ceil (vf);
> + VRFIP
> + vd __builtin_vec_ceil (vd);
> + XVRDPIP
Is that a comment you forgot to remove, or is there work to be done here?
> +[VEC_CMPEQ, vec_cmpeq, __builtin_vec_cmpeq]
> +; #### XVCMPEQSP{TARGET_VSX};VCMPEQFP
And this.
> +; #### XVCMPEQSP_P{TARGET_VSX};VCMPEQFP_P
> +[VEC_CMPEQ_P, SKIP, __builtin_vec_vcmpeq_p]
And more!
And more later. It isn't clear to me at all what those comments mean,
and they are formatted haphazardly, so looks like a WIP?
> +; Note that the entries for VEC_MUL are currently ignored. See rs6000-c.c:
> +; altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin, where there is special-case code for
> +; VEC_MUL. TODO: Is this really necessary? Investigate. Seven missing
> +; prototypes here...no corresponding builtins. Also added "vmulld" in P10
> +; which could be used instead of MUL_V2DI, conditionally?
Space after "..." :-P
> +; Opportunity for improvement: We can use XVRESP instead of VREFP for
> +; TARGET_VSX. We would need conditional dispatch to allow two possibilities.
> +; Some syntax like "XVRESP{TARGET_VSX};VREFP".
> +; TODO. ####
> +[VEC_RE, vec_re, __builtin_vec_re]
Don't we already anyway? The only difference is whether all VSRs are
allowed or only the VRs, no? The RTL generated is just the same? Or
maybe I am overlooking something :-)
> +; **************************************************************************
> +; **************************************************************************
> +; **** Deprecated overloads that should never have existed at all ****
> +; **************************************************************************
> +; **************************************************************************
The coding conventions say not to use showy block comments like that,
but it seems appropriate here :-)
Okay for trunk with the #### looked at. Please don't repost this one.
Thanks!
Segher
