Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Add support for machine-dependent builtins

[Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>]

David: Ping.

Le 2024-02-29 à 10 h 34, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> David: Ping.
> 
> On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 09:32 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>> David: Ping
>>
>> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 08:59 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>>> David: Ping.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:58 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>>>> Here it is: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/jit/2023q4/001725.html
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:44 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 18:29 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>>>>>> David: Ping in case you missed this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason it's not showing up in patchwork (or, at least,
>>>>> I
>>>>> can't
>>>>> find it there).  Do you have a URL for it there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about this
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 2023-02-11 at 17:37 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 4:31 PM Antoni Boucher via Gcc-
>>>>>>> patches
>>>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>> This patch adds support for machine-dependent builtins in
>>>>>>>> libgccjit
>>>>>>>> (bug 108762).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are two things I don't like in this patch:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   1. There are a few functions copied from the C frontend
>>>>>>>> (common_mark_addressable_vec and a few others).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   2. Getting a target builtin only works from the second
>>>>>>>> compilation
>>>>>>>> since the type information is recorded at the first
>>>>>>>> compilation.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> couldn't find a way to get the builtin data without using
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> langhook.
>>>>>>>> It is necessary to get the type information for type
>>>>>>>> checking
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> instrospection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any idea how to fix these issues?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems like you should do this patch in a few steps; that is
>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>> Definitely split out GCC_JIT_TYPE_BFLOAT16 support.
>>>>>>> I also think the vector support should be in a different
>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Splitting out these parts would definitely make it easier
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>> and make incremental improvements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Andrew Pinski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>