From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B45D7385740D for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B45D7385740D Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24Q3IRHq008542; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:19 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ga1h5t15f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:19 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24Q5cMwT039335; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:18 GMT Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ga1h5t14q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:18 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 24Q5WdAI025169; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:16 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3g93ux23dk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:16 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 24Q5qDt718350388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:13 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39C04C04E; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEEC4C044; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.197.252.204] (unknown [9.197.252.204]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <5b68d622-20dd-1630-d3f5-a167f7798a3f@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 13:52:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4, rs6000] Add V1TI into vector comparison expand [PR103316] Content-Language: en-US To: HAO CHEN GUI Cc: Segher Boessenkool , David , Peter Bergner , gcc-patches References: <5e9b4423-b40f-f5e0-15fd-99776c426c32@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: e74f6-22u3QO0DpR0fu9Punezogy36nw X-Proofpoint-GUID: TrP0ES36J4Vr8Gy8P-MNV9_LVT1w9HoL X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.874,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-05-26_01,2022-05-25_02,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=684 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2204290000 definitions=main-2205260030 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham 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: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:52:22 -0000 Hi Haochen, on 2022/5/26 13:30, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > Kewen, > Thanks so much for your advice. Just one question about effective-target. > > For the test cases, it needs both power10_ok and int128 support. I saw some > existing test cases have these two checks as well. But I wonder if power10_ok > already covers int128 on powerpc targets? Can we save one check then? > Good question, IMHO the checks are orthogonal, it's doable to disable int128 support by hacking the compiler, the int128 effective-target check then fails due to missing defined __SIZEOF_INT128__, but power10_ok check isn't able to catch that, the test case could end up with possible unexpected result without the explicit int128 check. To me, the int128 check is to ensure int128 type is available and the power10_ok check is to ensure the power10 specific instructions are supported. BR, Kewen