| Message ID | alpine.DEB.1.10.1409031436470.27075@tp.orcam.me.uk |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > (floating-point environment is of course unsupported for soft-float > targets and for the SPE FPU another change is required to implement > floating-point environment handling to complement one proposed here). Support for SPE will depend on the C library just as soft-float support will, because of the need to have trapping on exceptions other than "inexact" enabled in the processor at all times with the kernel then using the prctl settings to determine whether that trap is for emulation or to produce SIGFPE. (The relevant support is in glibc 2.19 for soft-float and e500, in the form of __atomic_feholdexcept, __atomic_feclearexcept and __atomic_feupdateenv functions. I intend to implement the GCC side - conditional on being configured for glibc 2.19 or later on the target, as specified with --with-glibc-version or detected by configure's examination of target headers - once the hard-float support is in GCC. I believe the support in question will be identical for soft-float and e500, since it will be calling libc functions instead of manipulating processor state.)
On 03-09-2014 11:01, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> Ping. >> >> On 19-08-2014 13:54, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>> Ping. >>> >>> On 06-08-2014 17:21, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>>> On 01-08-2014 12:31, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for implementing the FENV support. The patch generally looks >>>>>> good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> My one concern is a detail in the implementation of "update". I do not >>>>>> have enough experience with GENERIC to verify the details and it seems >>>>>> like it is missing building an outer COMPOUND_EXPR containing >>>>>> update_mffs and the CALL_EXPR for update mtfsf. >>>>> I suppose what's actually odd there is that you have >>>>> >>>>> + tree update_mffs = build2 (MODIFY_EXPR, void_type_node, old_fenv, call_mffs); >>>>> + >>>>> + tree old_llu = build1 (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, uint64_type_node, update_mffs); >>>>> >>>>> so you build a MODIFY_EXPR in void_type_node but then convert it with a >>>>> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR. If you'd built the MODIFY_EXPR in double_type_node >>>>> then the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR would be meaningful (the value of an assignment >>>>> a = b being the new value of a), but reinterpreting a void value doesn't >>>>> make sense. Or you could probably just use call_mffs directly in the >>>>> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR without explicitly creating the old_fenv variable. >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the review Josephm. I have changed to avoid the void reinterpretation >>>> and use call_mffs directly. I have also removed the the mask generation in 'clear' >>>> from your previous message, it is now reusing the mas used in feholdexcept. The >>>> testcase patch is the same as before. >>>> >>>> Checked on both linux-powerpc64/powerpc64le and no regressions found. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 2014-08-06 Adhemerval Zanella <azanella@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> >>>> gcc: >>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_atomic_assign_expand_fenv): New >>>> function. >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite: >>>> * gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c >>>> (test_main_long_double_add_overflow): Define and run only for >>>> LDBL_MANT_DIG != 106. >>>> (test_main_complex_long_double_add_overflow): Likewise. >>>> (test_main_long_double_sub_overflow): Likewise. >>>> (test_main_complex_long_double_sub_overflow): Likewise. > FWIW I pushed it through regression testing across my usual set of > powerpc-linux-gnu multilibs with the results (for c11-atomic-exec-5.c) as > follows: > > -mcpu=603e PASS > -mcpu=603e -msoft-float UNSUPPORTED > -mcpu=8540 -mfloat-gprs=single -mspe=yes -mabi=spe UNSUPPORTED > -mcpu=8548 -mfloat-gprs=double -mspe=yes -mabi=spe UNSUPPORTED > -mcpu=7400 -maltivec -mabi=altivec PASS > -mcpu=e6500 -maltivec -mabi=altivec PASS > -mcpu=e5500 -m64 PASS > -mcpu=e6500 -m64 -maltivec -mabi=altivec PASS Thanks for testing it, I'll to add these permutations on my own testbench. > > (floating-point environment is of course unsupported for soft-float > targets and for the SPE FPU another change is required to implement > floating-point environment handling to complement one proposed here). > No regressions otherwise. > > While at it, may I propose another change on top of this? > > I've noticed the test case is rather slow, it certainly takes much more > time than the average one, I've seen elapsed times of well over a minute > on reasonably fast hardware and occasionally a timeout midway through even > though the test case was otherwise progressing just fine. I think lock > contention or unrelated system activity such as hardware interrupts (think > a busy network!) may contribute to it for systems using LL/SC loops for > atomicity. > > So I think the default timeout that's used for really quick tests should > be extended a bit. I propose a factor of 2, just not to make it too > excessive, at least for the beginning (maybe it'll have to be higher > eventually). Do you mind if I incorporate this change on my patchset? > > OK? > > 2014-09-03 Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c (dg-timeout-factor): New > setting. > > Maciej > > gcc-test-c11-atomic-exec-5-timeout-factor.diff > Index: gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 2014-09-02 17:34:06.718927043 +0100 > +++ gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 2014-09-03 14:51:12.958927233 +0100 > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > /* { dg-additional-options "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600" { target *-*-solaris2.1[0-9]* } } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target pthread } */ > +/* { dg-timeout-factor 2 } */ > > #include <fenv.h> > #include <float.h> >
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > While at it, may I propose another change on top of this? > > > > I've noticed the test case is rather slow, it certainly takes much more > > time than the average one, I've seen elapsed times of well over a minute > > on reasonably fast hardware and occasionally a timeout midway through even > > though the test case was otherwise progressing just fine. I think lock > > contention or unrelated system activity such as hardware interrupts (think > > a busy network!) may contribute to it for systems using LL/SC loops for > > atomicity. > > > > So I think the default timeout that's used for really quick tests should > > be extended a bit. I propose a factor of 2, just not to make it too > > excessive, at least for the beginning (maybe it'll have to be higher > > eventually). > > Do you mind if I incorporate this change on my patchset? I missed your e-mail previously, sorry. Surely I don't! Thanks. Maciej
Hi, I thought http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html would be folded into PowerPC TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV support, but I see r216437 went without it. In that case would someone please review my proposal as a separate change? Thanks, Maciej
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I thought http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html would > be folded into PowerPC TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV support, but I see > r216437 went without it. In that case would someone please review my > proposal as a separate change? The patch seems like a kludge work-around. Joseph suggested that full support will require a newer GLIBC and detection in GCC. Thanks, David
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki > <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I thought http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html would > > be folded into PowerPC TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV support, but I see > > r216437 went without it. In that case would someone please review my > > proposal as a separate change? > > The patch seems like a kludge work-around. Joseph suggested that full > support will require a newer GLIBC and detection in GCC. No, it's support for soft-float and e500 in TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV that will need that (along with libgcc changes to make libgcc's copies of the soft-fp functions into compat symbols when they are available in glibc). That's nothing to do with the timeout issue.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki >> <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I thought http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html would >> > be folded into PowerPC TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV support, but I see >> > r216437 went without it. In that case would someone please review my >> > proposal as a separate change? >> >> The patch seems like a kludge work-around. Joseph suggested that full >> support will require a newer GLIBC and detection in GCC. > > No, it's support for soft-float and e500 in > TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV that will need that (along with libgcc > changes to make libgcc's copies of the soft-fp functions into compat > symbols when they are available in glibc). That's nothing to do with the > timeout issue. I can apply the patch, but I don't want to unilaterally decide to change the timeout affecting all architectures. Thanks, David
David, > >> > I thought http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html would > >> > be folded into PowerPC TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV support, but I see > >> > r216437 went without it. In that case would someone please review my > >> > proposal as a separate change? > >> > >> The patch seems like a kludge work-around. Joseph suggested that full > >> support will require a newer GLIBC and detection in GCC. > > > > No, it's support for soft-float and e500 in > > TARGET_ATOMIC_ASSIGN_EXPAND_FENV that will need that (along with libgcc > > changes to make libgcc's copies of the soft-fp functions into compat > > symbols when they are available in glibc). That's nothing to do with the > > timeout issue. > > I can apply the patch, but I don't want to unilaterally decide to > change the timeout affecting all architectures. Understood, I only cc-ed you to keep you in the loop with changes somehow related to Power targets and stuff you have been involved with rather than seeking your approval. Maciej
Hi, This patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html is still waiting, please review. Thanks, Maciej
On Nov 14, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html > > is still waiting, please review. Wait no more. Ok.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Mike Stump wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00242.html > > > > is still waiting, please review. > > Wait no more. > > Ok. Applied now, thanks for your review. Maciej
Index: gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c =================================================================== --- gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 2014-09-02 17:34:06.718927043 +0100 +++ gcc-fsf-trunk-quilt/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 2014-09-03 14:51:12.958927233 +0100 @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ /* { dg-additional-options "-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600" { target *-*-solaris2.1[0-9]* } } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target pthread } */ +/* { dg-timeout-factor 2 } */ #include <fenv.h> #include <float.h>