From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F633858D28; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B6F633858D28 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 (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 33C4GP1V009496; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:03 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=J+ox8bgZGWXF4KhS821UJ0ueG6s3kyMMyvOPCLV9+8A=; b=fVDkHctdoVGy5x9dlTFDYAqDRC1c35IQUr3N1ApvCa3FrvyKKs/w2audOyHfI0rVhH3S P8U7/ldiLU0YRozrL1dpHRIaZ4x39I2oGZa+HcXycR/0K67zBnR74LueCPS3o1F2Hoh/ BG26v9nI6YdvCQgo0y31EUnMvZR6lTnZDxP60MEXbyYLmWGnVbdjHOD4gKCE5pppXl3E oTjH2FZMjD3f803uth0eLuiotPO/+3x9VVE1TgCCeCtEZ/bgHPdpoBaZgCGAy2F5bBSM oJfyqNFBUStHIva38tX21YuMUcZRchMMVNnrMOnY7GX5j8Vmb6pJgwFMAWu/z5oCikxz 5w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pwk7rdqe2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:03 +0000 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 33C4HGST007747; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:02 GMT Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.121.186]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pwk7rdqd5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 33C3Tpdl028236; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:01 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.113]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pu0fr42aa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:01 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.229]) by smtprelay03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 33C570Ug17826468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:07:00 GMT Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A6F5805B; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:06:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6A45805C; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:06:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com (unknown [9.3.90.43]) by smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:06:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , dje.gcc@gmail.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, meissner@linux.ibm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:06:54 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20230411151335.GB19790@gate.crashing.org> (Segher Boessenkool's message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:13:35 -0500") Message-ID: <7nzg7d8z9t.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-GUID: 7p1LtnQxROqAy_Z6Gn-wCL0PRxQJ3B2t X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: xFECbs96XBOkOwek99QMRrzcsqmW05zV 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 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303200000 definitions=main-2304120044 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,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: 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 > 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