public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/96895] ABI of returning V1DF differs between GCC and clang
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:08:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-96895-4-orSMoizBRT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-96895-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96895

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #2)
> The psABI doesn't say anything about such types, no.  Maybe it could in some
> additional info pages, but it's always a problem to codify behaviour
> retroactively
> in it, when conflicting implementations already exist.  It is about
> extension types, though, so we might be fine.
> 
> FWIW, even ignoring the obvious relation of v1Xf to Xf, GCC behaviour for
> float and clang behaviour for double is the most logical one: this extended
> type is most
> similar to a struct containing one float/double, and such are passed in XMM
> registers per psABI.  As this is also consistent with how a single
> top-level float is passed, this choice is the most consistent one.  This is
> also
> what the psABI _would_ say, if we had written it into it, so at least both
> compilers would need a change to implement it.

So vector types with element type T and N, a power-of-two, not otherwise
specified are passes the same as

struct S { T a[N] };

?  I guess there's mismatch then for AVX types with -mno-avx then at least
(AVX512 are probably too big to be passed in registers).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-02 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-02  8:24 [Bug target/96895] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-02  8:29 ` [Bug target/96895] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-02 12:14 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-02 12:15 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2020-09-02 12:18 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2020-09-02 14:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-09-02 14:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-02 14:28 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-04 10:18 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-96895-4-orSMoizBRT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).