Hi, Gentle ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/597286.html
BR, Kewen on 2022/6/27 10:47, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Segher! > > on 2022/6/25 00:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 09:03:59AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>> on 2022/6/24 03:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:07:48PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>>>> As PR103353 shows, we may want to continue to expand a MMA built-in >>>>> function like a normal function, even if we have already emitted >>>>> error messages about some missing required conditions. As shown in >>>>> that PR, without one explicit mov optab on OOmode provided, it would >>>>> call emit_move_insn recursively. >>>> >>>> First off: lxvp is a VSX insn, not an MMA insn. So please don't call it >>>> that -- this confusion is what presumably caused the problem here, so it >>>> would be good to root it out :-) >>> >>> I guess the "it" in "don't call it call" is for "MMA built-in function"? >>> It comes from the current code: >> >> Your proposed commit message says "MMA built-in function". It is not >> an MMA builtin, or rather, it should not be. >> >>>>> + /* Opaque modes are only expected to be available when MMA is >>>>> supported, >>>> >>>> Why do people expect that? It is completely wrong. The name "opaque" >>>> itself already says this is not just for MMA, but perhaps more >>>> importantly, it is a basic VSX insn, doesn't touch any MMA resources, >>>> and is useful in other contexts as well. >>> >>> ... The above statements are also based on current code, for now, the >>> related things like built-in functions, mov optab, hard_regno_ok etc. >>> for these two modes are guarded by TARGET_MMA. >> >> Opaque modes are a generic thing, not an rs6000 thing. It is important >> not to conflate completely different things that just happened to >> coincide some months ago (but not anymore right now even!) >> >>> I think I get your points here, you want to separate these opaque >>> modes from MMA since the underlying lxvp/stxvp are not MMA specific, >>> so those related things (bifs, mov optabs etc.) are not necessarily >>> guarded under MMA. >> >> Yup. This can take some time of course, but in the mean time we should >> stop pretending the status quo is correct. >> >>>> So this needs some bigger surgery. >>> >>> Yes, Peter may have more comments on this. >> >> Yes. Can you do a patch that just fixes this PR103353, without adding >> more misleading comments? :-) >> > > Many thanks for all the further explanation above! The attached patch > updated the misleading comments as you pointed out and suggested, could > you help to have another look? > > BR, > Kewen
