* [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).