> Hello.
> I have already sent a patch for expanding roundeven for i386 with
> relevant doubts. I also was regression testing with
> make -k check
> after successful bootstrap build with reverting my patches. Turns out
> do-check fails without any patches applied, Is it ok to do anyways for
> applied patch? Also, /contrib/compare_tests returns with "no common
> files to compare" but I see all as the same files (actually, I am
> moving *.sum files in manual directory and comparing with build of
> applied patch.)? Is it due to failed make check?
The usual procedure is to do make check on clean tree and use
contrib/test_summary to produce summary and then do the same
with patched tree and compare the outputs (by diff)
Honza
>
> Thanks,
> -Tejas
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 19:07, Tejas Joshi <tejasjoshi9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> > I have made following changes to inspect inlining of roundeven with
> > the following test code:
> > double
> > plusone (double d)
> > {
> > return __builtin_roundeven (d) + 1;
> > }
> >
> > Running the program using -O2 foo.c gave internal compiler error which
> > I believe is because gcc_unreachable() at:
> >
> > if (TARGET_SSE4_1)
> > emit_insn (gen_sse4_1_round<mode>2
> > (operands[0], operands[1], GEN_INT (ROUND_<ROUNDING>
> > | ROUND_NO_EXC)));
> > I think the following condition matches the criterion? :
> > > I think the code will be much clearer if it explicitly says
> > > ROUND_ROUNDEVEN | ROUND_NO_EXC,
> >
> > else if (TARGET_64BIT || (<MODE>mode != DFmode))
> > {
> > if (ROUND_<ROUNDING> == ROUND_FLOOR)
> > ix86_expand_floorceil (operands[0], operands[1], true);
> > else if (ROUND_<ROUNDING> == ROUND_CEIL)
> > ix86_expand_floorceil (operands[0], operands[1], false);
> > else if (ROUND_<ROUNDING> == ROUND_TRUNC)
> > ix86_expand_trunc (operands[0], operands[1]);
> > else
> > gcc_unreachable ();
> > }
> > in:
> > (define_expand "<rounding_insn><mode>2"
> > But with -mavx, generated the vroundsd insn. Does it mean ROUNDEVEN
> > should have a condition in the else if, but comments above
> > ix86_expand* functions in i386-expand.c says that those are for SSE2
> > sequences?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Tejas
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > >
> > > > > existing ROUND_NO_EXC definition in GCC. A new definition will need
> > > > > adding alongside ROUND_FLOOR, ROUND_CEIL and ROUND_TRUNC to
> > > > > correspond to
> > > > > rounding to nearest with ties to even, evaluating to 0.)
> > > >
> > > > So (ROUND_ROUNDEVEN 0x0) be declared for rounding towards nearest
> > > > even for rounding mode argument? But reference says that RC field
> > > > should end up as 00B for rounding ties to even? I am also much
> > >
> > > I think the code will be much clearer if it explicitly says
> > > ROUND_ROUNDEVEN | ROUND_NO_EXC, than if it hardcodes implicit knowledge
> > > that 0 is the value used for rounding to nearest with ties to even.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joseph S. Myers
> > > jos...@codesourcery.com
