From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A752385737C for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 13:17:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 3A752385737C Received: by mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com with SMTP id h5so1375789vsq.5 for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MnCqb6tZc0paDP18hdGgkFLtAJaLcQTEsaFMTLaGGZU=; b=NJy5t7Odq3V+Nremf18bhGh4GjOn97G4lzms4sjqrfN1MikHJ1Y6SMqb/B3hLelfq3 pmeak5m493Vaowb+QkXRsj/A0sgc6b5Cbm5gE5xHoRlI1UYWEO4vaffeG18Iy+feA2lx tc2qrNILTZjIWDBfxcpph1wg/seJTgyUzftZP+rh2Oggyf3pC1hRePJiPqTdkVdlKGh0 l8IdP6Ehh1arx5p9x8jAmupA5Xay8CdLebepd4OzCT8CK4NHDSUxcFayxzySM6JnTgQk 5U9YWcXL3wtkNfeRBZi6DY7btua5hhMCCZU0ZBvv+4qc9nCcHDQny/1MOhIwRUfFgUiL O+lw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DDzsPsRRW/HFJNxbTuBqn1Kd3yP/pkwNW5P5LldCpgvlcZJQY Wspa7do+f8dVhhQwEFJIJofNlr6o0RtdOe1nHcA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzMbAX12H35P8vHtYnJk0bqRL6IBhs/FcB5SBIfTC7Erz6NxXA73K0kGGBxlgD7nvyKQnYWqU6524AAIScK2Q= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f745:0:b0:335:e652:c692 with SMTP id w5-20020a67f745000000b00335e652c692mr14268478vso.52.1653571037616; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5e9b4423-b40f-f5e0-15fd-99776c426c32@linux.ibm.com> <5b68d622-20dd-1630-d3f5-a167f7798a3f@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5b68d622-20dd-1630-d3f5-a167f7798a3f@linux.ibm.com> From: David Edelsohn Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 09:16:59 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4, rs6000] Add V1TI into vector comparison expand [PR103316] To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: HAO CHEN GUI , Segher Boessenkool , Peter Bergner , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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 13:17:19 -0000 On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:52 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > > 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. Does Power10 fully support int128 in 32 bit mode? I would expect no, so the additional test is required. Thanks, David > > BR, > Kewen