From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083CA3858D32 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:51:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 083CA3858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1685793067; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=9cH+OiUbdmLQ6eFpmQRjTaN8CUXxnTzi0Ihwj73PvXw=; b=Va1gsvF2/nfDa/laTynVPToXY8ISCXS2Fl3S7hkqBBY+4lmvPox0sfczFeMN2NVJsCPRSY BqIbiVGXU467uW6Xv9PPnFzEAnR5XbrQF7fMK/Hvdpwrae8C+YOvf0Z8FircpGouCxeeWK N3nYQFc6TCvlGlrApn8c3G/WCCQTiRE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-35-2QIigxDaOnCp0KsuNhj76Q-1; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 07:49:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2QIigxDaOnCp0KsuNhj76Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE38185A78E; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.30]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64334097561; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 353BnpB03025517 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:49:51 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 353Bnnpm3025516; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:49:49 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:49:49 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Mason Cc: Uros Bizjak , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, Jeffrey Walton , Marc Glisse Subject: Re: Use-case for _addcarryx_u64() wrapper Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 01:37:53PM +0200, Mason wrote: > On 01/06/2023 09:42, Mason wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, intrinsics _addcarry_u64() and _addcarryx_u64() are > > plain wrappers around the same __builtin_ia32_addcarryx_u64() function. > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config/i386/adxintrin.h > > Hello Uros, Jakub, > > I want to report a missed-optimization bug with _addcarry_u64(). > (I can file an issue on Bugzilla, if you deem it appropriate.) Filing this in bugzilla is the right way to go. I think we'll need to do something about this stuff urgently on most of the arches anyway, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989#c56 But what your testcase shows is a separate issue, so should be filed separately. Thanks. Jakub