From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>,
Jojo R <rjiejie@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: implement TARGET_MODE_REP_EXTENDED
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:49:37 +0300 (MSK) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1064b612-3826-4ee6-e47c-6f795fbcaab0@ispras.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <05d1a70a-650b-b321-385e-eb1146587344@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1305 bytes --]
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022, Jeff Law wrote:
> > The concern, as far as I understand would be the case where the
> > assembly-sequence leaves an incompatible extension in the register.
>
> Right. The question in my mind is whether or not the responsibility should be
> on the compiler or on the developer to ensure the ASM output is properly
> extended. If someone's writing ASMs, then to a large degree, I consider it
> their responsibility to make sure things are properly extended
Right. They should also find out the hard way, with zero documentation telling
them they had to (let alone *why* they had to), and without a hypothetical
-fsanitize=abi that would catch exactly the point of the missing extension
instead of letting the program crash mysteriously at a much later point.
Uphill both ways, in a world where LLVM does not place such burden on the
programmer, and even among GCC targets only mips64 made a precedent (also
without documenting the new requirement).
> -- even more so
> if having the compiler do it results in slower code independent of ASMs.
I think LLVM demonstrates well enough that a compiler can do a better job
than GCC at eliminating redundant extensions without upgrading requirements
for inline asm (in the usual C code, not for sub-word outputs of an asm).
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-21 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-05 21:44 Philipp Tomsich
2022-09-06 11:39 ` Alexander Monakov
2022-09-16 23:48 ` Jeff Law
2022-09-17 7:59 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-11-04 23:00 ` Philipp Tomsich
2022-11-05 6:16 ` [PATCH] [PHIOPT] Add A ? B + CST : B match and simplify optimizations Zhongyunde
2022-11-05 6:34 ` Andrew Pinski
2022-11-05 9:03 ` Zhongyunde
2022-11-08 14:58 ` Richard Biener
2022-11-08 15:51 ` 钟云德
2022-11-09 8:00 ` Richard Biener
2022-11-07 13:55 ` [PATCH] riscv: implement TARGET_MODE_REP_EXTENDED Alexander Monakov
2022-11-08 23:45 ` Philipp Tomsich
2022-11-09 17:21 ` Alexander Monakov
2022-11-20 16:09 ` Jeff Law
2022-11-21 13:49 ` Alexander Monakov [this message]
2022-11-21 14:56 ` Jeff Law
2022-11-21 15:33 ` Alexander Monakov
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=1064b612-3826-4ee6-e47c-6f795fbcaab0@ispras.ru \
--to=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@gmail.com \
--cc=philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu \
--cc=rjiejie@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=vineetg@rivosinc.com \
/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).