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 6F9153858281 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6F9153858281 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27F7F3El005811; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:55 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hyh4e20tw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:54 +0000 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27F80uJf015963; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:54 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hyh4e20s9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:54 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 27F86bdh006996; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:52 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3hx37j9tcy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:52 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 27F8595D33554832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:05:09 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3F211C054; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04B911C04A; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.197.235.82] (unknown [9.197.235.82]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 16:07:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: PING^2 [PATCH v4] rs6000: Adjust mov optabs for opaque modes [PR103353] Content-Language: en-US To: GCC Patches Cc: Peter Bergner , Segher Boessenkool , David Edelsohn References: <09c34b29-feea-d26e-2c4f-5e096ab286bc@linux.ibm.com> <20220623190619.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> <6ded988f-6684-e42e-ca82-d81ff55178d2@linux.ibm.com> <20220624164917.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> <1647e4bb-fa61-065f-d90d-b56503f44770@linux.ibm.com> <0a8a5ebb-0e28-5af1-ce77-a7b6cf07a0bd@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <0a8a5ebb-0e28-5af1-ce77-a7b6cf07a0bd@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: L202GmwDaKxaBGgOwMaeQea_e7YighrN X-Proofpoint-GUID: poSwHIswNPR1TE2XR_jVkwmhIgWdoCyK Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-08-15_04,2022-08-11_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2208150028 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, 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: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:07:57 -0000 Hi, Gentle ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/597286.html BR, Kewen > > on 2022/6/27 10:47, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi Segher! >> >> on 2022/6/25 00:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 09:03:59AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>>> on 2022/6/24 03:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:07:48PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>>>>> As PR103353 shows, we may want to continue to expand a MMA built-in >>>>>> function like a normal function, even if we have already emitted >>>>>> error messages about some missing required conditions. As shown in >>>>>> that PR, without one explicit mov optab on OOmode provided, it would >>>>>> call emit_move_insn recursively. >>>>> >>>>> First off: lxvp is a VSX insn, not an MMA insn. So please don't call it >>>>> that -- this confusion is what presumably caused the problem here, so it >>>>> would be good to root it out :-) >>>> >>>> I guess the "it" in "don't call it call" is for "MMA built-in function"? >>>> It comes from the current code: >>> >>> Your proposed commit message says "MMA built-in function". It is not >>> an MMA builtin, or rather, it should not be. >>> >>>>>> + /* Opaque modes are only expected to be available when MMA is supported, >>>>> >>>>> Why do people expect that? It is completely wrong. The name "opaque" >>>>> itself already says this is not just for MMA, but perhaps more >>>>> importantly, it is a basic VSX insn, doesn't touch any MMA resources, >>>>> and is useful in other contexts as well. >>>> >>>> ... The above statements are also based on current code, for now, the >>>> related things like built-in functions, mov optab, hard_regno_ok etc. >>>> for these two modes are guarded by TARGET_MMA. >>> >>> Opaque modes are a generic thing, not an rs6000 thing. It is important >>> not to conflate completely different things that just happened to >>> coincide some months ago (but not anymore right now even!) >>> >>>> I think I get your points here, you want to separate these opaque >>>> modes from MMA since the underlying lxvp/stxvp are not MMA specific, >>>> so those related things (bifs, mov optabs etc.) are not necessarily >>>> guarded under MMA. >>> >>> Yup. This can take some time of course, but in the mean time we should >>> stop pretending the status quo is correct. >>> >>>>> So this needs some bigger surgery. >>>> >>>> Yes, Peter may have more comments on this. >>> >>> Yes. Can you do a patch that just fixes this PR103353, without adding >>> more misleading comments? :-) >>> >> >> Many thanks for all the further explanation above! The attached patch >> updated the misleading comments as you pointed out and suggested, could >> you help to have another look? >> >> BR, >> Kewen