From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-199906-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12054 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2019 07:21:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11780 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2019 07:21:35 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=fadds, d,wa, fwa, f,wa
X-HELO: gate.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 07:21:34 +0000
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x7E7LTQw032243;	Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:21:29 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x7E7LS0W032240;	Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:21:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 07:21:00 -0000
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Tejas Joshi <tejasjoshi9673@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>, hubicka@ucw.cz,        joseph@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: Expansion of narrowing math built-ins into power instructions
Message-ID: <20190814072127.GE31406@gate.crashing.org>
References: <CACMrGjC5T-BNowawG9WiKi-C6FRMrtNKnkUSsn1TVT3iFN-Zdg@mail.gmail.com> <20190808200514.GL31406@gate.crashing.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908082304570.5719@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CACMrGjB1UmfKuTCwGLi5oTapr4EM-JxbfVGr_GvwucWwfg0oYg@mail.gmail.com> <20190811165916.GX31406@gate.crashing.org> <CACMrGjAPa21OJ_ry+1HPyEQQbZhGOkQTVXwe=CvHsufc_ms_CQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190812175450.GB31406@gate.crashing.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908122118140.18203@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20190812215224.GC31406@gate.crashing.org> <CACMrGjDbF8qyaF8_p5ofOT7gFRqMyOTtzxsKRM3r2aXX+8KS+A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACMrGjDbF8qyaF8_p5ofOT7gFRqMyOTtzxsKRM3r2aXX+8KS+A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:51:28AM +0530, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > The RTL needs to be something that
> > does *not* match the combination of separate operations (just as fma has
> > its own RTL, and a separate pass is responsible for converting separate
> 
> So do I need to introduce fadd's own RTL just as fma which would emit
> a fused instruction while -ffp-contract is default (fast) and would
> emit separate instructions like add in DFmode and then truncate to SF?
> while -ffp-contract=off ? (just as fma)

I think you can do one RTL code that replaces float_truncate in

> > > > (define_insn "add_truncdfsf3"
> > > >   [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=f,wa")
> > > >     (float_truncate:SF
> > > >       (plus:DF (match_operand:DF 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "%d,wa")
> > > >                (match_operand:DF 2 "gpc_reg_operand" "d,wa"))))]

but that is only meant for such explicit contraction.  This can then
happily be used to implement all such patterns.  Is there some issue
with that I overlook?

A good name for this...  I would say "float_contract", because I like
horrible names.  It shouldn't be hard to think of something better :-)


Segher