From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607B33858401 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:04:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 607B33858401 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 279M3vdj013025; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:03:57 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 279M3vxQ013024; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:03:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:03:56 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: Xionghu Luo , Xionghu Luo , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix incorrect RTL for Power LE when removing the UNSPECS [PR106069] Message-ID: <20220809220356.GW25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20220808034247.2618809-1-xionghuluo@tencent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no 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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 22:04:59 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:01:05AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2022/8/8 11:42, Xionghu Luo wrote: > > Regression tested pass for Power8{LE,BE}{32,64} and Power{9,10}LE{32,64} > > Sorry, no -m32 for LE testing. You can use -m32 on powerpc64le-*, but the default configuration disallows it. There also is powerpcle-*, which in the distant past actually was used (string insns (like lswi) and multiple insns (like lmw) do not work, and unaligned accesses are more problematic as well, but :-) ) It isn't something we support with ELFv2 at all, indeed. > I have some concern on those changed "altivec_*_direct", IMHO the suffix > "_direct" is normally to indicate the define_insn is mapped to the > corresponding hw insn directly. Exactly. Let's please keep this intact. > With this change, for example, > altivec_vmrghb_direct can be mapped into vmrghb or vmrglb, this looks > misleading. Maybe we can add the corresponding _direct_le and _direct_be > versions, both are mapped into the same insn but have different RTL > patterns. If that is the best we can do, that is the best we can do. It would be lovely if there was something nicer we can do though :-) Segher