From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314CE3858033 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 314CE3858033 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 26S8hnEH011880; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:24 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hkq6sr5an-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:24 +0000 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 26S8i66E012759; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:24 GMT Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hkq6sr59s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:24 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 26S8ZVr4015628; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:22 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3hg98fj5hg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:22 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 26S8nJ8k27263278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:19 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC554C044; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46EA4C040; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.197.237.12] (unknown [9.197.237.12]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <0a8a5ebb-0e28-5af1-ce77-a7b6cf07a0bd@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 16:49:16 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: PING^1 [PATCH v4] rs6000: Adjust mov optabs for opaque modes [PR103353] Content-Language: en-US To: GCC Patches Cc: Peter Bergner , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool References: <09c34b29-feea-d26e-2c4f-5e096ab286bc@linux.ibm.com> <20220623190619.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> <6ded988f-6684-e42e-ca82-d81ff55178d2@linux.ibm.com> <20220624164917.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> <1647e4bb-fa61-065f-d90d-b56503f44770@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <1647e4bb-fa61-065f-d90d-b56503f44770@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: wyJubIf3Z5-6sGh5psCcC7nVSkiJle84 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Jsb0uFEV8hWorbLPmvlS4OELczsqbCTF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-07-28_01,2022-07-28_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2206140000 definitions=main-2207280036 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:49:26 -0000 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