* [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
@ 2021-11-16 17:12 Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 16:54 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 20:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Bill Schmidt @ 2021-11-16 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches; +Cc: Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn
Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this okay for trunk?
Thanks!
Bill
2021-11-11 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_invalid_new_builtin): Change
error messages for ENB_P8V and ENB_P9V.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 85fec80c6d7..035266eb001 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -11943,7 +11943,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power8");
break;
case ENB_P8V:
- error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower8-vector");
+ error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power8",
+ "-mvsx");
break;
case ENB_P9:
error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power9");
@@ -11953,7 +11954,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
name, "-mcpu=power9", "-m64", "-mpowerpc64");
break;
case ENB_P9V:
- error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower9-vector");
+ error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power9",
+ "-mvsx");
break;
case ENB_IEEE128_HW:
error ("%qs requires ISA 3.0 IEEE 128-bit floating point", name);
--
2.27.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-16 17:12 [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins Bill Schmidt
@ 2021-11-17 16:54 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 17:00 ` Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 20:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul A. Clarke @ 2021-11-17 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wschmidt; +Cc: GCC Patches, David Edelsohn, Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
...
> gcc/
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_invalid_new_builtin): Change
> error messages for ENB_P8V and ENB_P9V.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> index 85fec80c6d7..035266eb001 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> @@ -11943,7 +11943,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power8");
> break;
> case ENB_P8V:
> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower8-vector");
> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power8",
> + "-mvsx");
"-mcpu=power8" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
> break;
> case ENB_P9:
> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power9");
> @@ -11953,7 +11954,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
> name, "-mcpu=power9", "-m64", "-mpowerpc64");
> break;
> case ENB_P9V:
> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower9-vector");
> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power9",
> + "-mvsx");
Similarly, "-mcpu=power9" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
Are you trying to also say "don't use -mno-vsx"? If so, maybe s/and/with/
would be slightly less confusing? This is going to be awkward unless it can
be more precise, like two messages depending on actual context:
- with "-mcpu=power8 -mno-vsx: "...requires -mvsx".
- without "-mcpu=power8": "...requires -mcpu=power8".
PC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-17 16:54 ` Paul A. Clarke
@ 2021-11-17 17:00 ` Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 17:45 ` Paul A. Clarke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Bill Schmidt @ 2021-11-17 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul A. Clarke; +Cc: GCC Patches, David Edelsohn, Segher Boessenkool
On 11/17/21 10:54 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
>> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
>> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
> ...
>> gcc/
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_invalid_new_builtin): Change
>> error messages for ENB_P8V and ENB_P9V.
>> ---
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> index 85fec80c6d7..035266eb001 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> @@ -11943,7 +11943,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
>> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power8");
>> break;
>> case ENB_P8V:
>> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower8-vector");
>> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power8",
>> + "-mvsx");
> "-mcpu=power8" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
Of course, but it can be disabled with -mno-vsx. Then you get this error.
You won't get it unless you deliberately did something strange with the
compile options.
>
>> break;
>> case ENB_P9:
>> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power9");
>> @@ -11953,7 +11954,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
>> name, "-mcpu=power9", "-m64", "-mpowerpc64");
>> break;
>> case ENB_P9V:
>> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower9-vector");
>> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power9",
>> + "-mvsx");
> Similarly, "-mcpu=power9" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
>
> Are you trying to also say "don't use -mno-vsx"? If so, maybe s/and/with/
> would be slightly less confusing? This is going to be awkward unless it can
> be more precise, like two messages depending on actual context:
> - with "-mcpu=power8 -mno-vsx: "...requires -mvsx".
> - without "-mcpu=power8": "...requires -mcpu=power8".
This seems like a YMMV situation...I don't see the confusion myself.
Bill
>
> PC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-17 17:00 ` Bill Schmidt
@ 2021-11-17 17:45 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul A. Clarke @ 2021-11-17 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wschmidt; +Cc: GCC Patches, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:00:07AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 11/17/21 10:54 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> >> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
> >> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
> > ...
> >> gcc/
> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_invalid_new_builtin): Change
> >> error messages for ENB_P8V and ENB_P9V.
> >> ---
> >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 6 ++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> >> index 85fec80c6d7..035266eb001 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> >> @@ -11943,7 +11943,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
> >> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power8");
> >> break;
> >> case ENB_P8V:
> >> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower8-vector");
> >> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power8",
> >> + "-mvsx");
> > "-mcpu=power8" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
>
> Of course, but it can be disabled with -mno-vsx. Then you get this error.
> You won't get it unless you deliberately did something strange with the
> compile options.
>
> >
> >> break;
> >> case ENB_P9:
> >> error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mcpu=power9");
> >> @@ -11953,7 +11954,8 @@ rs6000_invalid_new_builtin (enum rs6000_gen_builtins fncode)
> >> name, "-mcpu=power9", "-m64", "-mpowerpc64");
> >> break;
> >> case ENB_P9V:
> >> - error ("%qs requires the %qs option", name, "-mpower9-vector");
> >> + error ("%qs requires the %qs and %qs options", name, "-mcpu=power9",
> >> + "-mvsx");
> > Similarly, "-mcpu=power9" itself enables "-mvsx", doesn't it?
> >
> > Are you trying to also say "don't use -mno-vsx"? If so, maybe s/and/with/
> > would be slightly less confusing? This is going to be awkward unless it can
> > be more precise, like two messages depending on actual context:
> > - with "-mcpu=power8 -mno-vsx: "...requires -mvsx".
> > - without "-mcpu=power8": "...requires -mcpu=power8".
>
> This seems like a YMMV situation...I don't see the confusion myself.
I guess I'm being pedantic. "requires -mcpu=power8 and -mvsx" is not
accurate from a user's point a view, as "-mcpu=power8" is sufficient,
since "-mvsx" is enabled when "-mcpu=power8" is specified.
The real "requires" is "-mcpu=power8" and no "-mno-vsx".
(I'm just picturing myself fumbling around in a Makefile written by
somebody else. ;-)
It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be
uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless.
PC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-17 17:45 ` Paul A. Clarke
@ 2021-11-17 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-11-17 20:04 ` David Edelsohn
2021-11-17 20:25 ` Paul A. Clarke
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2021-11-17 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul A. Clarke; +Cc: wschmidt, GCC Patches, David Edelsohn
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> I guess I'm being pedantic. "requires -mcpu=power8 and -mvsx" is not
> accurate from a user's point a view, as "-mcpu=power8" is sufficient,
> since "-mvsx" is enabled when "-mcpu=power8" is specified.
To be really pedantic, -mcpu=power8 isn't required either: anythng that
enable the subset of ISA 2.07 that is needed is enough already. But we
don't want to encourage users to use those interfaces.
> The real "requires" is "-mcpu=power8" and no "-mno-vsx".
And no -mno-altivec. And and and. There is a huge web.
> It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be
> uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless.
Maybe the warning could say "requires -mcpu=power8 (and -mvsx)"? Is
that clearer, to your eye?
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-17 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
@ 2021-11-17 20:04 ` David Edelsohn
2021-11-17 20:25 ` Paul A. Clarke
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: David Edelsohn @ 2021-11-17 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Segher Boessenkool, Paul A. Clarke, Bill Schmidt; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:02 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> > It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be
> > uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless.
>
> Maybe the warning could say "requires -mcpu=power8 (and -mvsx)"? Is
> that clearer, to your eye?
Maybe "requires -mcpu=power8 with VSX" or "requires -mcpu=power8 with
VSX enabled"?
Thanks, David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-17 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-11-17 20:04 ` David Edelsohn
@ 2021-11-17 20:25 ` Paul A. Clarke
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul A. Clarke @ 2021-11-17 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: GCC Patches, wschmidt, David Edelsohn
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 02:00:02PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > I guess I'm being pedantic. "requires -mcpu=power8 and -mvsx" is not
> > accurate from a user's point a view, as "-mcpu=power8" is sufficient,
> > since "-mvsx" is enabled when "-mcpu=power8" is specified.
>
> To be really pedantic, -mcpu=power8 isn't required either: anythng that
> enable the subset of ISA 2.07 that is needed is enough already. But we
> don't want to encourage users to use those interfaces.
>
> > The real "requires" is "-mcpu=power8" and no "-mno-vsx".
>
> And no -mno-altivec. And and and. There is a huge web.
>
> > It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be
> > uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless.
>
> Maybe the warning could say "requires -mcpu=power8 (and -mvsx)"? Is
> that clearer, to your eye?
Hrm. No, but let me withdraw my expression of concern. Both "power8" and
"vsx" are required, and those two options get that explicitly.
That "-mcpu=power8" also pulls in "-mvsx" is a subtlety that is
perhaps not terribly relevant.
Thanks for entertaining my concern, but we've spent too much time on it
already. :-)
PC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins
2021-11-16 17:12 [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 16:54 ` Paul A. Clarke
@ 2021-11-17 20:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2021-11-17 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Schmidt; +Cc: GCC Patches, David Edelsohn
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> Is this okay for trunk?
It is. Thank you!
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-11-17 20:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-11-16 17:12 [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 16:54 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 17:00 ` Bill Schmidt
2021-11-17 17:45 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-11-17 20:04 ` David Edelsohn
2021-11-17 20:25 ` Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-17 20:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
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).