Kewen:
On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 17:11 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > So, there is no need for the builtin to have to determine if the
> > user
> > is storing the result of the __builtin_set_fpscr_rn. The RN bits
> > will
> > always be updated by the __builtin_set_fpscr_rn builtin and the
> > existing f
Hi Carl,
on 2023/5/25 23:59, Carl Love wrote:
> Peter, Kewen:
>
> On Thu, 2023-05-25 at 13:28 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/5/24 23:20, Carl Love wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 13:32 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
on 2023/5/24 06:30, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin
Peter, Kewen:
On Thu, 2023-05-25 at 13:28 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/24 23:20, Carl Love wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 13:32 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > > on 2023/5/24 06:30, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > > On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > > > > on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrot
on 2023/5/24 23:20, Carl Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 13:32 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/5/24 06:30, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrote:
> The builtins were requested for use in GLibC. As of version
> 2.31 th
On 5/24/23 10:20 AM, Carl Love wrote:
> Extending the builtin to pre Power 9 is straight forward and I agree
> would make good sense to do.
>
> I am a bit concerned on how to extend __builtin_set_fpscr_rn to add the
> new functionality. Peter suggests overloading the builtin to either
> return vo
On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 13:32 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/24 06:30, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > > on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrote:
> > > > The builtins were requested for use in GLibC. As of version
> > > > 2.31 they
> > > > were added as inline asm
on 2023/5/24 06:30, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrote:
>>> The builtins were requested for use in GLibC. As of version 2.31 they
>>> were added as inline asm. They requested a builtin so the asm could be
>>> removed.
>>
>> So IMHO
On 5/23/23 12:24 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrote:
>> The builtins were requested for use in GLibC. As of version 2.31 they
>> were added as inline asm. They requested a builtin so the asm could be
>> removed.
>
> So IMHO we also want the similar support for mffscrn, tha
on 2023/5/23 01:31, Carl Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 14:36 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> on 2023/5/19 05:12, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> GCC maintainers:
>>>
>>> version 2. Fixed an issue with the test case. The dg-options line
>>> was
>>> missing.
>>>
>>> The followi
On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 14:36 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2023/5/19 05:12, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > GCC maintainers:
> >
> > version 2. Fixed an issue with the test case. The dg-options line
> > was
> > missing.
> >
> > The following patch adds an overloaded builtin. T
Hi Carl,
on 2023/5/19 05:12, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> GCC maintainers:
>
> version 2. Fixed an issue with the test case. The dg-options line was
> missing.
>
> The following patch adds an overloaded builtin. There are two possible
> arguments for the builtin. The builtin definition
GCC maintainers:
version 2. Fixed an issue with the test case. The dg-options line was
missing.
The following patch adds an overloaded builtin. There are two possible
arguments for the builtin. The builtin definitions are:
double __builtin_mffscrn (unsigned long int);
double __builtin_mf
12 matches
Mail list logo
