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 C13303858406 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:08:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C13303858406 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 27AH71Pd013866; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:07:01 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 27AH70Lt013865; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:07:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:07:00 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Xionghu Luo Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , Xionghu Luo , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rs6000: Fix incorrect RTL for Power LE when removing the UNSPECS [PR106069] Message-ID: <20220810170700.GA25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20220808034247.2618809-1-xionghuluo@tencent.com> <76035a5e-f0d8-8bc5-93e9-cfb08b2127f8@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76035a5e-f0d8-8bc5-93e9-cfb08b2127f8@gmail.com> 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: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:08:03 -0000 On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:39:02PM +0800, Xionghu Luo wrote: > On 2022/8/9 11:01, Kewen.Lin wrote: > >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. 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. Looking forward to Segher's and David's suggestions. > > Thanks! Do you mean same RTL patterns with different hw insn? A pattern called altivec_vmrghb_direct_le should always emit a vmrghb instruction, never a vmrglb instead. Misleading names are an expensive problem. Segher