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
