David: Ping.
On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 09:32 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> David: Ping
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 08:59 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > David: Ping.
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:58 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Here it is: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/jit/2023q4/001725.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:44 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:29 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > David: Ping in case you missed this patch.
> > > >
> > > > For some reason it's not showing up in patchwork (or, at least,
> > > > I
> > > > can't
> > > > find it there). Do you have a URL for it there?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry about this
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2023-02-11 at 17:37 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 4:31 PM Antoni Boucher via Gcc-
> > > > > > patches
> > > > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > This patch adds support for machine-dependent builtins in
> > > > > > > libgccjit
> > > > > > > (bug 108762).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are two things I don't like in this patch:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. There are a few functions copied from the C frontend
> > > > > > > (common_mark_addressable_vec and a few others).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Getting a target builtin only works from the second
> > > > > > > compilation
> > > > > > > since the type information is recorded at the first
> > > > > > > compilation.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > couldn't find a way to get the builtin data without using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > langhook.
> > > > > > > It is necessary to get the type information for type
> > > > > > > checking
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > instrospection.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any idea how to fix these issues?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems like you should do this patch in a few steps; that is
> > > > > > split
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > up.
> > > > > > Definitely split out GCC_JIT_TYPE_BFLOAT16 support.
> > > > > > I also think the vector support should be in a different
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Splitting out these parts would definitely make it easier
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > and make incremental improvements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Andrew Pinski
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
