On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 11:13 -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I over-restricted use of __builtin_mffsl, since I was unaware that it
> automatically uses mffs when mffsl is not available. Paul Clarke
> pointed
> this out in discussion of his SSE 4.1 compatibility patches.
>
> 2021-08-31 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (__builtin_mffsl): Move from
> [power9]
> to [always].
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
> index 6a28d5189f8..a8c6b9e988f 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def
> @@ -208,6 +208,12 @@
> double __builtin_mffs ();
> MFFS rs6000_mffs {}
>
> +; Although the mffsl instruction is only available on POWER9 and
> later
> +; processors, this builtin automatically falls back to mffs on older
> +; platforms. Thus it appears here in the [always] stanza.
> + double __builtin_mffsl ();
> + MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
> +
> ; This thing really assumes long double == __ibm128, and I'm told it
> has
> ; been used as such within libgcc. Given that __builtin_pack_ibm128
> ; exists for the same purpose, this should really not be used at
> all.
> @@ -2784,9 +2790,6 @@
> signed long long __builtin_darn_raw ();
> DARN_RAW darn_raw {}
>
> - double __builtin_mffsl ();
> - MFFSL rs6000_mffsl {}
> -
> const signed int __builtin_dtstsfi_eq_dd (const int<6>,
> _Decimal64);
> TSTSFI_EQ_DD dfptstsfi_eq_dd {}
>
Looks reasonable,
Thanks
-Will
