Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Segher, on 2021/11/30 上午8:16, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:13:40PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> PR target/102347 >> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_builtin_decl): Remove builtin >> mask check. > > (Don't wrap lines early please). > Fixed.

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi! On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:13:40PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > PR target/102347 > * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_builtin_decl): Remove builtin > mask check. (Don't wrap lines early please). Okay for trunk and all backports. Thanks! Segher

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi! On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:30:42PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > > If we do need a band-aid for 10 and 11 (and we do as far as I can see), > > I'd like to see one for just MMA there, and let all other badness fade > > into history. Unless you can convince me (in the patch / commit > > message) th

PING^3 [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi, As the discussions and the testing result under the main thread, this patch would be safe. Ping for this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580357.html BR, Kewen >> on 2021/9/28 下午4:13, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As the discussion in PR102347,

PING^2 [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi, As the discussions and the testing result under the main thread, this patch would be safe. Ping for this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580357.html BR, Kewen > > on 2021/9/28 下午4:13, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As the discussion in PR102347, cu

PING^1 [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi, As the discussions and the testing result under the main thread, this patch would be safe. Ping for this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580357.html BR, Kewen on 2021/9/28 下午4:13, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi, > > As the discussion in PR102347, currently

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Bill! on 2021/10/13 上午12:36, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > On 10/11/21 1:30 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Hi Segher, >> >> Thanks for the comments. >> >> on 2021/10/1 上午6:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>> >>> [ huge sni

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Kewen, On 10/11/21 1:30 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: > Hi Segher, > > Thanks for the comments. > > on 2021/10/1 上午6:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> >> [ huge snip ] >> >>> Based on the understanding and testing, I think it's safe

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Segher, Thanks for the comments. on 2021/10/1 上午6:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > > [ huge snip ] > >> Based on the understanding and testing, I think it's safe to adopt this >> patch. >> Do both Peter and you agree the r

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi! On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: [ huge snip ] > Based on the understanding and testing, I think it's safe to adopt this patch. > Do both Peter and you agree the rs6000_expand_builtin will catch the invalid > built-in? > Is there some special case which probably es

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Bill, on 2021/9/29 下午7:59, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > On 9/28/21 9:34 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Hi Bill, >> >> Thanks for your prompt comments! >> >> on 2021/9/29 上午3:24, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> Hi Kewen, >>> >>> Although I agree that what we do now is tragically bad (and will be fixed

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Kewen, On 9/28/21 9:34 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for your prompt comments! > > on 2021/9/29 上午3:24, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> Hi Kewen, >> >> Although I agree that what we do now is tragically bad (and will be fixed in >> the builtin rewrite), this seems a little too cavalier to

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Bill, Thanks for your prompt comments! on 2021/9/29 上午3:24, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > Although I agree that what we do now is tragically bad (and will be fixed in > the builtin rewrite), this seems a little too cavalier to remove all checking > during initialization without adding

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

On 9/28/21 2:24 PM, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > Unless you are planning to do a backport, I think the proper way forward > here is to just wait for the new builtin support to land. In the new code, > we initialize all built-ins up front, and check properly at expansion time > whether the

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi Kewen, Although I agree that what we do now is tragically bad (and will be fixed in the builtin rewrite), this seems a little too cavalier to remove all checking during initialization without adding any checking somewhere else. :-)  We still need to check for invalid usage when the builtin i

[PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Hi, As the discussion in PR102347, currently builtin_decl is invoked so early, it's when making up the function_decl for builtin functions, at that time the rs6000_builtin_mask could be wrong for those builtins sitting in #pragma/attribute target functions, though it will be updated properly later