From: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,
Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Teach rs6000_opaque_type_invalid_use_p about gcall [PR108348]
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:05:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2422e203-d2bb-30a4-efac-55972c96e074@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230116104051.GG25951@gate.crashing.org>
Hi Segher!
on 2023/1/16 18:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 05:20:56PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/1/16 16:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_p9modulo_ok } */
>>>
>>> Please use a saner selector? If one doesn't exist yet, make a new one?
>>> Something that just says "p9", not "modulo".
>>
>> The has_arch_pwr9 looks not suitable here as it doesn't check
>> the assembler behavior?
>
> ? What assembler behaviour?
I should have said assembler "support", selector powerpc_p9modulo_ok
checks if assembler supports some insn or not, but has_arch_pwr9
doesn't.
>
>> Do you have some instruction in mind
>> for being used as the tested instruction mnemonic like modsw?
>
> It should not test *any* instruction?
>
> Ah. There is no *_ok wanted or needed at all. You simply are required
> to use a new enough binutils to fit your GCC. During development you
> probably want something, but that should not end up in the public trees.
> You can always use -mcpu=power9. If your toolchain is broken that will
> throw some pretty obvious errors your way; this is fine. A user can
> always say -mcpu=power9.
> The *_ok things should only be used for features that can be disabled
> during configuration, or features that we *want* users to be able to
> turn off (like FP, VMX, VSX, or HMT or QP float, that kind of thing).
> That gives quite enough permutations to test already, we do not need to
> create a whole bunch extra for no reason :-)
Thanks for the explanation!! I meant to use powerpc_p9modulo_ok to
exclude those cases where we can't use -mcpu=power9, as you explained we
should not worry about it!? Since the test point requires altivec support
(which is implied when specifying -mcpu=power9, I didn't explicitly specify
it before), I think I could use powerpc_altivec_ok to replace
powerpc_p9modulo_ok here, does it sound good to you?
BR,
Kewen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-16 8:33 Kewen.Lin
2023-01-16 8:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-01-16 9:20 ` Kewen.Lin
2023-01-16 10:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-01-16 13:05 ` Kewen.Lin [this message]
2023-01-16 15:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-01-17 2:48 ` Kewen.Lin
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=2422e203-d2bb-30a4-efac-55972c96e074@linux.ibm.com \
--to=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/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).