[01/14] Initial create of rs6000-genbif.c.

Includes header documentation and initial set of include directives.

2020-02-03  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>

        * config/rs6000/rs6000-genbif.c: New file.
---
 gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-genbif.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 124 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-genbif.c

Hi!

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 08:26:02PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Includes header documentation and initial set of include directives.

Please use full sentences in commit messages.

> +/* This program generates built-in function initialization and
> +   recognition code for Power targets, based on text files that
> +   describe the built-in functions and vector overloads:
> +
> +     rs6000-bif.def       Table of built-in functions
> +     rs6000-overload.def  Table of overload functions

I really don't think using the new acronym "bif" helps; built-in
functions already are often called "builtins" (or "intrinsics", which is
problematic itself).

> +     ext     Process as a vec_extract function

Please spell out "extract"?  There are too many other words starting with
"ext", some of which you could expect here ("extend", "extension", maybe
even "extra");

> +     ldv     Needs special handling for vec_ld semantics
> +     stv     Needs special handling for vec_st semantics

Call those "vec_ld" and "vec_st", then?  Or should I get used to it, the
names aren't obvious, but cut-and-paste always is ;-)

> +[TARGET_ALTIVEC]

Can this be a C expression?  Most gen* programs just copy similar things
to the generated C code, which can be interesting to debug, but works
perfectly well otherwise.

> +  const vector signed char __builtin_altivec_abs_v16qi (vector signed char);
> +    ABS_V16QI absv16qi2 {abs}
> +  const vector signed short __builtin_altivec_abs_v8hi (vector signed short);
> +    ABS_V8HI absv8hi2 {abs}
> +
> +   Note the use of indentation, which is recommended but not required.

It does require a single newline at the end of each such line, right?
Does that work aout almost always, or do you get very long lines?

> +     [<overload-id>, <external-name>, <internal-name>]

Hrm, "internal" suggests "name within the GCC code", but that is not what
it means.  Maybe something like abi-name and builtin-name?

> +  Blank lines may be used as desired in these files.

Between stanzas and stuff only?  There are places where newlines are
significant and not just whitespace, right?

Great docs, thanks!


Segher

On 2/4/20 12:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 08:26:02PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Includes header documentation and initial set of include directives.
> Please use full sentences in commit messages.


OK.

>
>> +/* This program generates built-in function initialization and
>> +   recognition code for Power targets, based on text files that
>> +   describe the built-in functions and vector overloads:
>> +
>> +     rs6000-bif.def       Table of built-in functions
>> +     rs6000-overload.def  Table of overload functions
> I really don't think using the new acronym "bif" helps; built-in
> functions already are often called "builtins" (or "intrinsics", which is
> problematic itself).


Until we manage to replace the old methods, we already have 
rs6000-builtin.def, so I am a bit constrained in my choices. Given that 
restriction, what name would you prefer?  I can use rs6000-builtins.def 
(the plural) if you like.

I didn't think I was inventing "bif" as shorthand, but maybe that was an 
LLVM thing...

>
>> +     ext     Process as a vec_extract function
> Please spell out "extract"?  There are too many other words starting with
> "ext", some of which you could expect here ("extend", "extension", maybe
> even "extra");


OK.

>
>> +     ldv     Needs special handling for vec_ld semantics
>> +     stv     Needs special handling for vec_st semantics
> Call those "vec_ld" and "vec_st", then?  Or should I get used to it, the
> names aren't obvious, but cut-and-paste always is ;-)


Hm.  Well, vec_ld is a specific built-in, but this applies to a few more 
than just that one.  But sure, if you want.

>
>> +[TARGET_ALTIVEC]
> Can this be a C expression?  Most gen* programs just copy similar things
> to the generated C code, which can be interesting to debug, but works
> perfectly well otherwise.


I rather prefer the way it is.  I do generate C code from this in the 
subsequent patches.  But I like table-driven code to use things that 
look like tables for input. :-)

>
>> +  const vector signed char __builtin_altivec_abs_v16qi (vector signed char);
>> +    ABS_V16QI absv16qi2 {abs}
>> +  const vector signed short __builtin_altivec_abs_v8hi (vector signed short);
>> +    ABS_V8HI absv8hi2 {abs}
>> +
>> +   Note the use of indentation, which is recommended but not required.
> It does require a single newline at the end of each such line, right?
> Does that work aout almost always, or do you get very long lines?


Yes, for now I am requiring the newline at the end of each line. I found 
that it does indeed get very long (unreadably long) lines for vector 
signatures.  I forgot to update this documentation when I changed my 
format.  I am now using abbreviations for vector types that match those 
we use often in our test cases ("vuc" for "vector unsigned char", "vsll" 
for "vector signed long long", etc.).  This makes for very nicely 
readable inputs (see patch #2).

The above now becomes

   const vsc __builtin_altivec_abs_v16qi (vsc);
     ABS_V16QI absv16qi2 {abs}
   const vss __builtin_altivec_abs_v8hi (vss);
     ABS_V8HI absv8hi2 {abs}

I will fix the documentation!

>
>> +     [<overload-id>, <external-name>, <internal-name>]
> Hrm, "internal" suggests "name within the GCC code", but that is not what
> it means.  Maybe something like abi-name and builtin-name?


OK, that's reasonable.

>
>> +  Blank lines may be used as desired in these files.
> Between stanzas and stuff only?  There are places where newlines are
> significant and not just whitespace, right?


I don't believe so, although there may be places where I forgot to allow 
a line to be advanced -- that would be a bug, though, so let me know if 
you see any.  Blank lines don't have any inherent meaning in the input 
files.

>
> Great docs, thanks!


Thanks for the review!
Bill

>
>
> Segher

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:10:32PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >I really don't think using the new acronym "bif" helps; built-in
> >functions already are often called "builtins" (or "intrinsics", which is
> >problematic itself).
> 
> Until we manage to replace the old methods, we already have 
> rs6000-builtin.def, so I am a bit constrained in my choices. Given that 
> restriction, what name would you prefer?  I can use rs6000-builtins.def 
> (the plural) if you like.

As we discussed (offline), maybe rs6000-builtin-new.def is best (and at
the end of this conversion, just move it).

> >>+     ldv     Needs special handling for vec_ld semantics
> >>+     stv     Needs special handling for vec_st semantics
> >Call those "vec_ld" and "vec_st", then?  Or should I get used to it, the
> >names aren't obvious, but cut-and-paste always is ;-)
> 
> Hm.  Well, vec_ld is a specific built-in, but this applies to a few more 
> than just that one.  But sure, if you want.

"ldv" certainly is shorter and nicer in principle, but it is a bit
cryptic.  As I said, it's probably not too hard to get used to it; and
maybe a better name will present itself?

> >>+[TARGET_ALTIVEC]
> >Can this be a C expression?  Most gen* programs just copy similar things
> >to the generated C code, which can be interesting to debug, but works
> >perfectly well otherwise.
> 
> I rather prefer the way it is.  I do generate C code from this in the 
> subsequent patches.  But I like table-driven code to use things that 
> look like tables for input. :-)

That's not what I meant...  Can you say
  [TARGET_ALTIVEC && TARGET_64BIT]
here?  Or even just
  [!TARGET_ALTIVEC]
or
  [1]
for always, or
  [0]
for never ("commented out").

> >>+  Blank lines may be used as desired in these files.
> >Between stanzas and stuff only?  There are places where newlines are
> >significant and not just whitespace, right?
> 
> I don't believe so, although there may be places where I forgot to allow 
> a line to be advanced -- that would be a bug, though, so let me know if 
> you see any.  Blank lines don't have any inherent meaning in the input 
> files.

Not blank lines, I'm asking about newlines :-)  But those are not allowed
to be inserted just anywhere, a line has to be one line, iiuc?


Segher

On 2/4/20 4:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:10:32PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> I really don't think using the new acronym "bif" helps; built-in
>>> functions already are often called "builtins" (or "intrinsics", which is
>>> problematic itself).
>> Until we manage to replace the old methods, we already have
>> rs6000-builtin.def, so I am a bit constrained in my choices. Given that
>> restriction, what name would you prefer?  I can use rs6000-builtins.def
>> (the plural) if you like.
> As we discussed (offline), maybe rs6000-builtin-new.def is best (and at
> the end of this conversion, just move it).
+1
>
>>>> +     ldv     Needs special handling for vec_ld semantics
>>>> +     stv     Needs special handling for vec_st semantics
>>> Call those "vec_ld" and "vec_st", then?  Or should I get used to it, the
>>> names aren't obvious, but cut-and-paste always is ;-)
>> Hm.  Well, vec_ld is a specific built-in, but this applies to a few more
>> than just that one.  But sure, if you want.
> "ldv" certainly is shorter and nicer in principle, but it is a bit
> cryptic.  As I said, it's probably not too hard to get used to it; and
> maybe a better name will present itself?
Maybe ldvec and stvec would serve without introducing specific builtin 
confusion.
>
>>>> +[TARGET_ALTIVEC]
>>> Can this be a C expression?  Most gen* programs just copy similar things
>>> to the generated C code, which can be interesting to debug, but works
>>> perfectly well otherwise.
>> I rather prefer the way it is.  I do generate C code from this in the
>> subsequent patches.  But I like table-driven code to use things that
>> look like tables for input. :-)
> That's not what I meant...  Can you say
>    [TARGET_ALTIVEC && TARGET_64BIT]
> here?  Or even just
>    [!TARGET_ALTIVEC]
> or
>    [1]
> for always, or
>    [0]
> for never ("commented out").
Ah!  Sorry for misunderstanding.  Right now just an identifier is 
allowed, but we could certainly grab the whole string between the [] and 
drop it in with no concerns.  Hopefully we both remember when we get to 
the patch that reads the stanzas...
>
>>>> +  Blank lines may be used as desired in these files.
>>> Between stanzas and stuff only?  There are places where newlines are
>>> significant and not just whitespace, right?
>> I don't believe so, although there may be places where I forgot to allow
>> a line to be advanced -- that would be a bug, though, so let me know if
>> you see any.  Blank lines don't have any inherent meaning in the input
>> files.
> Not blank lines, I'm asking about newlines :-)  But those are not allowed
> to be inserted just anywhere, a line has to be one line, iiuc?

Yes.  Additional newlines can follow a newline, but the individual lines 
must contain everything that's expected in them.

Bill

>
>
> Segher

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:44:04PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >"ldv" certainly is shorter and nicer in principle, but it is a bit
> >cryptic.  As I said, it's probably not too hard to get used to it; and
> >maybe a better name will present itself?
> Maybe ldvec and stvec would serve without introducing specific builtin 
> confusion.

Let's go with that, if nothing better shows up.

> >That's not what I meant...  Can you say
> >   [TARGET_ALTIVEC && TARGET_64BIT]
> >here?  Or even just
> >   [!TARGET_ALTIVEC]
> >or
> >   [1]
> >for always, or
> >   [0]
> >for never ("commented out").
> Ah!  Sorry for misunderstanding.  Right now just an identifier is 
> allowed, but we could certainly grab the whole string between the [] and 
> drop it in with no concerns.  Hopefully we both remember when we get to 
> the patch that reads the stanzas...

:-)


Segher