Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/7/21 11:55 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 7/6/21 5:05 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 04:13:06PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >>> On 7/6/21 3:08 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: On 7/6/21 2:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within > the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following > change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and > regtest for this change. Thanks, yes, that works for me! >>> >>> Great, thanks! >>> >>> >>> Segher, the patch was clean on testing. Ok with you too? >> >> Of course. Okay for trunk and backports (you might want to hurry it >> for 11.2). Thanks to you both! > > Ok, committed to trunk. I'm testing the GCC 11 backport now and will > commit if clean. Thanks. Backport testing was clean, so pushed to the GCC 11 branch. I'll work on the GCC 10 backport in a day or two. Peter
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/6/21 5:05 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 04:13:06PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> On 7/6/21 3:08 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> On 7/6/21 2:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and regtest for this change. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, yes, that works for me! >> >> Great, thanks! >> >> >> Segher, the patch was clean on testing. Ok with you too? > > Of course. Okay for trunk and backports (you might want to hurry it > for 11.2). Thanks to you both! Ok, committed to trunk. I'm testing the GCC 11 backport now and will commit if clean. Thanks. Peter
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 04:13:06PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 7/6/21 3:08 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > On 7/6/21 2:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > >> These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within > >> the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following > >> change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and > >> regtest for this change. > > > > > > Thanks, yes, that works for me! > > Great, thanks! > > > Segher, the patch was clean on testing. Ok with you too? Of course. Okay for trunk and backports (you might want to hurry it for 11.2). Thanks to you both! Segher
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/6/21 3:08 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 7/6/21 2:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: >> These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within >> the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following >> change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and >> regtest for this change. > > > Thanks, yes, that works for me! Great, thanks! Segher, the patch was clean on testing. Ok with you too? Peter
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/6/21 2:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 7/4/21 11:32 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote
On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ if (d[1].icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)
+ {
+ op[nopnds++] = void_type_node;
+ icode = d[1].icode;
+ }
This hunk bothers me. The new macros BU_MMA_PAIR_LD and BU_MMA_PAIR_ST
define only one builtin, not two.
Correct, unlike the other MMA builtins, they do not expand from gimple
into internal builtins that are expanded at rtl time. They instead are
expanded directly into gimple memory references.
They are both flagged as RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE.
Yes, because they are supposed to be expanded at gimple time.
Note, other non-MMA builtins that expand at gimple time should
probably also set this flag. That would allow an early exit
to be added to rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin(). I can add that
as a TODO.
The use of d[1] in this case is suspect and fragile. It appears you're relying
on the built-in following each of __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp
to exist, as otherwise d[1] will be out of bounds.
Ok, if they had been added as the last builtins in the array (they aren't),
that would be a problem.
Can you please replace this with something less fragile?
Perhaps leave the gimple_func leg alone, but first test for these two
builtins and do the right thing for them instead.
These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within
the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following
change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and
regtest for this change.
Thanks, yes, that works for me!
Bill
Peter
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (mma_init_builtins): Use VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP
and VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 6115e3b34d9..904e104c058 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -14293,7 +14293,8 @@ mma_init_builtins (void)
/* Some MMA built-ins that are expanded into gimple are converted
into internal MMA built-ins that are expanded into rtl.
The internal built-in follows immediately after this built-in. */
- if (d[1].icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)
+ if (d->code != VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP
+ && d->code != VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP)
{
op[nopnds++] = void_type_node;
icode = d[1].icode;
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/4/21 11:32 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote
> On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> + if (d[1].icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)
>> + {
>> + op[nopnds++] = void_type_node;
>> + icode = d[1].icode;
>> + }
> This hunk bothers me. The new macros BU_MMA_PAIR_LD and BU_MMA_PAIR_ST
> define only one builtin, not two.
Correct, unlike the other MMA builtins, they do not expand from gimple
into internal builtins that are expanded at rtl time. They instead are
expanded directly into gimple memory references.
> They are both flagged as RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE.
Yes, because they are supposed to be expanded at gimple time.
Note, other non-MMA builtins that expand at gimple time should
probably also set this flag. That would allow an early exit
to be added to rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin(). I can add that
as a TODO.
> The use of d[1] in this case is suspect and fragile. It appears you're
> relying
> on the built-in following each of __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp
> to exist, as otherwise d[1] will be out of bounds.
Ok, if they had been added as the last builtins in the array (they aren't),
that would be a problem.
> Can you please replace this with something less fragile?
> Perhaps leave the gimple_func leg alone, but first test for these two
> builtins and do the right thing for them instead.
These are RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, so I think they should be handled within
the "if (gimple_func) ..." leg. That said, how about the following
change to resolve the issue you have? I'll kick off a bootstrap and
regtest for this change.
Peter
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (mma_init_builtins): Use VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP
and VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 6115e3b34d9..904e104c058 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -14293,7 +14293,8 @@ mma_init_builtins (void)
/* Some MMA built-ins that are expanded into gimple are converted
into internal MMA built-ins that are expanded into rtl.
The internal built-in follows immediately after this built-in. */
- if (d[1].icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)
+ if (d->code != VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP
+ && d->code != VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP)
{
op[nopnds++] = void_type_node;
icode = d[1].icode;
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
Hi Peter,
On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (BU_MMA_PAIR_LD, BU_MMA_PAIR_ST):
New macros.
(__builtin_vsx_lxvp, __builtin_vsx_stxvp): New built-ins.
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin): Expand
lxvp and stxvp built-ins.
(mma_init_builtins): Handle lxvp and stxvp built-ins.
(builtin_function_type): Likewise.
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_vsx_lxvp, __builtin_mma_stxvp): Document.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/powerpc/mma-builtin-7.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/mma-builtin-8.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
index d7ce4de421e..6270444ef70 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
@@ -484,6 +484,25 @@
| RS6000_BTC_SENARY), \
CODE_FOR_ ## ICODE) /* ICODE */
+#define BU_MMA_PAIR_LD(ENUM, NAME, ATTR) \
+ RS6000_BUILTIN_M (VSX_BUILTIN_ ## ENUM, /* ENUM */ \
+ "__builtin_vsx_" NAME,/* NAME */ \
+ RS6000_BTM_MMA, /* MASK */ \
+ (RS6000_BTC_ ## ATTR/* ATTR */ \
+| RS6000_BTC_BINARY\
+| RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE), \
+ CODE_FOR_nothing) /* ICODE */
+
+#define BU_MMA_PAIR_ST(ENUM, NAME, ATTR) \
+ RS6000_BUILTIN_M (VSX_BUILTIN_ ## ENUM, /* ENUM */ \
+ "__builtin_vsx_" NAME,/* NAME */ \
+ RS6000_BTM_MMA, /* MASK */ \
+ (RS6000_BTC_ ## ATTR/* ATTR */ \
+| RS6000_BTC_TERNARY \
+| RS6000_BTC_VOID \
+| RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE), \
+ CODE_FOR_nothing) /* ICODE */
+
/* ISA 2.05 (power6) convenience macros. */
/* For functions that depend on the CMPB instruction */
#define BU_P6_2(ENUM, NAME, ATTR, ICODE) \
@@ -3253,6 +3272,9 @@ BU_SPECIAL_X (RS6000_BUILTIN_CFSTRING,
"__builtin_cfstring", RS6000_BTM_ALWAYS,
BU_P10V_VSX_1 (XVCVBF16SPN,"xvcvbf16spn", MISC, vsx_xvcvbf16spn)
BU_P10V_VSX_1 (XVCVSPBF16,"xvcvspbf16", MISC, vsx_xvcvspbf16)
+BU_MMA_PAIR_LD (LXVP, "lxvp", MISC)
+BU_MMA_PAIR_ST (STXVP, "stxvp", PAIR)
+
BU_MMA_1 (XXMFACC,"xxmfacc",QUAD, mma_xxmfacc)
BU_MMA_1 (XXMTACC,"xxmtacc",QUAD, mma_xxmtacc)
BU_MMA_1 (XXSETACCZ, "xxsetaccz", MISC, mma_xxsetaccz)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index b67789845a5..6115e3b34d9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -11913,6 +11913,32 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin (gimple_stmt_iterator
*gsi)
gsi_replace_with_seq (gsi, new_seq, true);
return true;
}
+ else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP)
+{
+ push_gimplify_context (true);
+ tree offset = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
+ tree ptr = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
+ tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
+ tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR,
+ TREE_TYPE (ptr), ptr, offset));
+ gimplify_assign (lhs, mem, _seq);
+ pop_gimplify_context (NULL);
+ gsi_replace_with_seq (gsi, new_seq, true);
+ return true;
+}
+ else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP)
+{
+ push_gimplify_context (true);
+ tree src = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
+ tree offset = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
+ tree ptr = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2);
+ tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR,
+ TREE_TYPE (ptr), ptr, offset));
+ gimplify_assign (mem, src, _seq);
+ pop_gimplify_context (NULL);
+ gsi_replace_with_seq (gsi, new_seq, true);
+ return true;
+}
/* Convert this built-in into an internal version that uses pass-by-value
arguments. The internal built-in follows immediately after this one. */
@@ -14264,11 +14290,14 @@ mma_init_builtins (void)
if (gimple_func)
{
gcc_assert (icode == CODE_FOR_nothing);
- op[nopnds++] = void_type_node;
/* Some MMA built-ins that are expanded into gimple are converted
into internal MMA built-ins that are expanded into rtl.
The internal built-in follows immediately after this
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/3/21 10:56 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 01:32:45PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: On 7/1/21 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: The patch is okay for trunk. Below is the updated patch which is bootstrapping now. I'll commit it if it shows no regressions. Testing was clean so I pushed it to trunk. For the backports it is okay if Bill has looked at this patch as well. Bill has not seen the patch. I'm not sure when/if he'll get a chance to either. Since Bill won't have a chance to look at this, ok for the backport after a couple of days on trunk? Bill's builtin rewrite is only targeted for trunk, so it doesn't affect the backport at all. Okay. Thanks! I will take a look hopefully today. Mostly looks good but I want to check a couple of things before signing off. Bill Segher
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 01:32:45PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > On 7/1/21 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> The patch is okay for trunk. > > > > Below is the updated patch which is bootstrapping now. I'll commit it > > if it shows no regressions. > > Testing was clean so I pushed it to trunk. > > > > >> For the backports it is okay if Bill has looked at this patch as well. > > > > Bill has not seen the patch. I'm not sure when/if he'll get a chance > > to either. > > Since Bill won't have a chance to look at this, ok for the backport > after a couple of days on trunk? Bill's builtin rewrite is only targeted > for trunk, so it doesn't affect the backport at all. Okay. Thanks! Segher
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/1/21 2:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 7/1/21 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> The patch is okay for trunk. > > Below is the updated patch which is bootstrapping now. I'll commit it > if it shows no regressions. Testing was clean so I pushed it to trunk. >> For the backports it is okay if Bill has looked at this patch as well. > > Bill has not seen the patch. I'm not sure when/if he'll get a chance > to either. Since Bill won't have a chance to look at this, ok for the backport after a couple of days on trunk? Bill's builtin rewrite is only targeted for trunk, so it doesn't affect the backport at all. Peter
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/1/21 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 04:56:04PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> LLVM added the __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins.
>> The following patch adds support for them to GCC so that we stay in sync
>> with LLVM.
>
> This should be documented somewhere.
Done.
>> + tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE
>> (ptr), ptr, offset));
>
> Line (much) too long.
Fixed.
>> + tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE
>> (ptr), ptr, offset));
>
> Same.
Fixed.
> Can BU_MMA_LD be used only for lxvp? Name it BU_MMA_PAIR_LD then? Same
> for _ST ofc.
Yes, it's used only for lxvp and stxvp and uses our MMA specific
__vector_pair types too. Macro name changed.
> The patch is okay for trunk.
Below is the updated patch which is bootstrapping now. I'll commit it
if it shows no regressions.
> For the backports it is okay if Bill has looked at this patch as well.
Bill has not seen the patch. I'm not sure when/if he'll get a chance
to either.
Peter
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (BU_MMA_PAIR_LD, BU_MMA_PAIR_ST):
New macros.
(__builtin_vsx_lxvp, __builtin_vsx_stxvp): New built-ins.
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin): Expand
lxvp and stxvp built-ins.
(mma_init_builtins): Handle lxvp and stxvp built-ins.
(builtin_function_type): Likewise.
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_vsx_lxvp, __builtin_mma_stxvp): Document.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/powerpc/mma-builtin-7.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/mma-builtin-8.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
index d7ce4de421e..6270444ef70 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def
@@ -484,6 +484,25 @@
| RS6000_BTC_SENARY), \
CODE_FOR_ ## ICODE) /* ICODE */
+#define BU_MMA_PAIR_LD(ENUM, NAME, ATTR) \
+ RS6000_BUILTIN_M (VSX_BUILTIN_ ## ENUM, /* ENUM */ \
+ "__builtin_vsx_" NAME, /* NAME */ \
+ RS6000_BTM_MMA, /* MASK */ \
+ (RS6000_BTC_ ## ATTR/* ATTR */ \
+| RS6000_BTC_BINARY\
+| RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE), \
+ CODE_FOR_nothing) /* ICODE */
+
+#define BU_MMA_PAIR_ST(ENUM, NAME, ATTR) \
+ RS6000_BUILTIN_M (VSX_BUILTIN_ ## ENUM, /* ENUM */ \
+ "__builtin_vsx_" NAME, /* NAME */ \
+ RS6000_BTM_MMA, /* MASK */ \
+ (RS6000_BTC_ ## ATTR/* ATTR */ \
+| RS6000_BTC_TERNARY \
+| RS6000_BTC_VOID \
+| RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE), \
+ CODE_FOR_nothing) /* ICODE */
+
/* ISA 2.05 (power6) convenience macros. */
/* For functions that depend on the CMPB instruction */
#define BU_P6_2(ENUM, NAME, ATTR, ICODE) \
@@ -3253,6 +3272,9 @@ BU_SPECIAL_X (RS6000_BUILTIN_CFSTRING,
"__builtin_cfstring", RS6000_BTM_ALWAYS,
BU_P10V_VSX_1 (XVCVBF16SPN, "xvcvbf16spn", MISC, vsx_xvcvbf16spn)
BU_P10V_VSX_1 (XVCVSPBF16, "xvcvspbf16", MISC, vsx_xvcvspbf16)
+BU_MMA_PAIR_LD (LXVP, "lxvp", MISC)
+BU_MMA_PAIR_ST (STXVP, "stxvp",PAIR)
+
BU_MMA_1 (XXMFACC, "xxmfacc", QUAD, mma_xxmfacc)
BU_MMA_1 (XXMTACC, "xxmtacc", QUAD, mma_xxmtacc)
BU_MMA_1 (XXSETACCZ, "xxsetaccz",MISC, mma_xxsetaccz)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index b67789845a5..6115e3b34d9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -11913,6 +11913,32 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin (gimple_stmt_iterator
*gsi)
gsi_replace_with_seq (gsi, new_seq, true);
return true;
}
+ else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP)
+{
+ push_gimplify_context (true);
+ tree offset = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
+ tree ptr = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
+ tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
+ tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR,
+ TREE_TYPE (ptr), ptr, offset));
+ gimplify_assign (lhs, mem, _seq);
+ pop_gimplify_context (NULL);
+ gsi_replace_with_seq (gsi, new_seq, true);
+ return true;
+}
+ else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP)
+{
+
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 7/1/21 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 04:56:04PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> LLVM added the __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins. >> The following patch adds support for them to GCC so that we stay in sync >> with LLVM. > > This should be documented somewhere. Hmmm, I had that change in one of my trees, but must have dropped it when moving to another system/tree and didn't notice! Doh! Let me add that back and make the other changes you suggested and then I'll repost and test here. Thanks for catching that! Peter
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 04:56:04PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> LLVM added the __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins.
> The following patch adds support for them to GCC so that we stay in sync
> with LLVM.
This should be documented somewhere.
> + else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_LXVP)
> +{
> + push_gimplify_context (true);
> + tree offset = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
> + tree ptr = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
> + tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
> + tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE
> (ptr), ptr, offset));
Line (much) too long.
> + else if (fncode == VSX_BUILTIN_STXVP)
> +{
> + push_gimplify_context (true);
> + tree src = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
> + tree offset = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
> + tree ptr = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2);
> + tree mem = build_simple_mem_ref (build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE
> (ptr), ptr, offset));
Same.
Can BU_MMA_LD be used only for lxvp? Name it BU_MMA_PAIR_LD then? Same
for _ST ofc.
The patch is okay for trunk. For the backports it is okay if Bill has
looked at this patch as well. Thanks!
Segher
Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add MMA __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins
On 6/30/21 3:56 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > The following patch is bootstrapping and regtesting on powerpc64le-linux. > Ok for trunk if there are no regressions? Ok to backport to GCC 11 and > GCC 10 after baking on trunk for a while? Bootstrap and regression testing came back clean. Peter
