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 0D83B3858D28; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0D83B3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 33C3tLSp038543; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:53 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : references : date : in-reply-to : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=65jHSNleX4xkMAzgmDZuXqoWxU8D980qHayyw7qQnls=; b=dyJGe73a78Ra34OGViSWbDypEBD9NVd1k0tgv1JACwrBfWD2fSoopWQwZiZMIw5eCiVR yRFgkrs5u0sxeSmfAQuKTUgYHEVbtxOqQYGMwLAttTNb05fX/q8YERtuQbJVLOTYWg9j o/MP5Ve4PEMDOVGCXrEa2H3QWMXIfbAVHVUTM35BSfeqEN66880d/EB8lebvY8wVkdL1 8R+Laka5x0I/UO0R/qtzrgxC60o/n+OwUV2jnPBLVnRLhYMQFVoM8yKezvls13hhpklY lxPbIqVwyWYEKZCyyeQ1OvtWnyWXPcS2yawyTI6+Irx1h9UuYSYraUoRn4/5pSKSLJZI Yg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pwn5gasmw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:53 +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 33C3uEL7040319; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:53 GMT Received: from ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (1a.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.26]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pwn5gasm8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:52 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 33C3dnnf020781; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:51 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.118]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pu0jh444q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:51 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.101]) by smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 33C5Vn9I11600476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:50 GMT Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6FB58051; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F0358065; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com (unknown [9.3.90.43]) by smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:31:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches Cc: Segher Boessenkool , "Kewen.Lin" , dje.gcc@gmail.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, meissner@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: update requires for powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c References: <20230410020941.2440885-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> <11b29ca1-cd23-1a48-4ad8-3b472d38fd2f@linux.ibm.com> <71ed6f665ae2ed9678d8dc4ec0f620ce@linux.ibm.com> <13ec00da-587b-847d-c26b-98cf463f21ac@linux.ibm.com> <20230411151335.GB19790@gate.crashing.org> <7nzg7d8z9t.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:31:46 +0800 In-Reply-To: <7nzg7d8z9t.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> (Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:06:54 +0800") Message-ID: <7no7nt8y4d.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: -wzEyjPnSGbXrynMO99FP0eyCZLc49ou X-Proofpoint-GUID: 2UKgpMb7-FXGuGZlNmc86z0KQYd3KNx5 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-04-11_16,2023-04-11_02,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303200000 definitions=main-2304120049 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes: > Hi, > > Segher Boessenkool writes: > >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>> on 2023/4/11 17:14, guojiufu wrote: >>> > Thanks for raising this concern. >>> > The behavior to check about bif on FLOAT128_HW and emit an error message for >>> > requirements on quad-precision is added in gcc12. This is why gcc12 fails to >>> > compile the case on -m32. >>> > >>> > Before gcc12, altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin will return the overloaded >>> > result directly, and does not check more about the result function. >>> >>> Thanks for checking, I wonder which commit caused this behavior change and what's >>> the underlying justification? I know there is one new bif handling framework >>> introduced in gcc12, not sure the checking condition was changed together or by >>> a standalone commit. Anyway, apparently the conditions for the support of these >>> bifs are different on gcc-11 and gcc-12, I wonder why it changed. As mentioned >>> above, PR108758's c#1 said this case (bifs) work well on gcc-11, I suspected the >>> condition change was an overkill, that's why I asked. >> >> It almost certainly was an oversight. The new builtin framework changed >> so many things, there was bound to be some breakage to go with all the >> good things it brought. > > Yes, the condition checking on gcc-12 is different from gcc-11. In > gcc-11, the condition on overloaded bif is not checked. > And, there are a few commits related to the bifs change. e.g. > r12-4977-ga28cfe49203705 introduces a new bif expand function which has > the ability to check more bif's target requirements like ieee128_hw. > And another commit changes the error message (r12-6684). > >> >> So what is the actual thing going wrong? QP insns work fine and are >> valid on all systems and environments, BE or LE, 32-bit or 64-bit. >> Of I understand that QP insns (e.g. xscmpexpqp) is valid if the system meets ISA3.0, no matter BE/LE, 32-bit/64-bit. I think option -mfloat128-hardware is designed for QP insns. While there is one issue, on BE machine, when compiling with options "-mfloat128-hardware -m32", an error message is generated: "error: '%<-mfloat128-hardware%>' requires '-m64'" (I'm wondering if we need to relax this limitation.) BR, Jeff (Jiufu) >> course you cannot use the "long double" type for those everywhere, but >> that is a very different thing. > > Currently, when compiling bif __builtin_vsx_scalar_cmp_exp_qp_eq, > gcc generates error message: > error: '__builtin_vsx_scalar_cmp_exp_qp_eq' requires quad-precision > floating-point arithmetic > > IMHO, this error would be ok. Because it makes sense that this bif > needs ieee128_hw. > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > >> >> >> Segher