| Message ID | 20201022221231.GA12376@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | PowerPC: Use __float128 instead of __ieee128 in tests. | expand |
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 18:12 -0400, Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches wrote: > PowerPC: Use __float128 instead of __ieee128 in tests. > > I have split all of these patches into separate patches to hopefully get them > into the tree. > > Two of the tests used the __ieee128 keyword instead of __float128. This > patch changes those cases to use the official keyword. > > I have tested this patch with bootstrap builds on a little endian power9 system > running Linux. With the other patches, I have built two full bootstrap builds > using this patch and the patches after this patch. One build used the current > default for long double (IBM extended double) and the other build switched the > default to IEEE 128-bit. I used the Advance Toolchain AT 14.0 compiler as the > library used by this compiler. There are no regressions between the tests. > There are 3 fortran benchmarks (ieee/large_2.f90, default_format_2.f90, and > default_format_denormal_2.f90) that now pass. > > Can I install this into the trunk? > > We have gotten some requests to back port these changes to GCC 10.x. At the > moment, I am not planning to do the back port, but I may need to in the future. > > gcc/testsuite/ > 2020-10-22 Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.ibm.com> > > * gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c: Use __float128 > keyword instead of __ieee128. > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c: Use __float128 keyword instead of > __ieee128. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c | 2 +- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c | 8 ++++---- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c > index d376a3ca68e..16b70877355 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int main(void) > { > int result; > double a_dble, b_dble; > - __ieee128 a_ieee128, b_ieee128; > + __float128 a_ieee128, b_ieee128; > > a_dble = 3.10; > b_dble = 3.10; > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c > index 1e671e175de..f2c6b8b7f5c 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c > @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@ > > typedef union > { > - __ieee128 a; > + __float128 a; > int b; > } c; > > -__ieee128 > -d (__ieee128 x) > +__float128 > +d (__float128 x) > { > - __ieee128 g; > + __float128 g; > c h; > h.a = x; > g = h.b & 5; > -- > 2.22.0 > lgtm, thanks -Will >
Hi, On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:12:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > Two of the tests used the __ieee128 keyword instead of __float128. This > patch changes those cases to use the official keyword. What is "official" about that? Why make this change at all? __ieee128 should work as well! Did you see failures without this patch? Thos need fixing, then. Segher
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 01:26:32PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:12:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > Two of the tests used the __ieee128 keyword instead of __float128. This > > patch changes those cases to use the official keyword. > > What is "official" about that? > > Why make this change at all? __ieee128 should work as well! Did you > see failures without this patch? Thos need fixing, then. We document '__float128'. We don't document '__ieee128'. As I said, using '__ieee128' internally was due some issues in the GCC 7 time frame, particularly before we had the glibc changes.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 04:44:09PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 01:26:32PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:12:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > Two of the tests used the __ieee128 keyword instead of __float128. This > > > patch changes those cases to use the official keyword. > > > > What is "official" about that? > > > > Why make this change at all? __ieee128 should work as well! Did you > > see failures without this patch? Thos need fixing, then. > > We document '__float128'. We don't document '__ieee128'. As I said, using > '__ieee128' internally was due some issues in the GCC 7 time frame, > particularly before we had the glibc changes. Well, it is a much clearer type as well: __ibm128 is also 128 bits, and is also a floating point type. But if __float128 now *always* means __ieee128, then fine :-) (But the manual needs fixing in four places, then.) Is __float128 a standard type? ("Standard", in whatever context -- not just a rs6000 GCC thing, and what else uses it then, and/or will other things use it in the future?) Also, we then should change things so __ieee128 becomes really only a legacy alias for __float128. Thanks, Segher
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c index d376a3ca68e..16b70877355 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp2-runnable.c @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int main(void) { int result; double a_dble, b_dble; - __ieee128 a_ieee128, b_ieee128; + __float128 a_ieee128, b_ieee128; a_dble = 3.10; b_dble = 3.10; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c index 1e671e175de..f2c6b8b7f5c 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr92796.c @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@ typedef union { - __ieee128 a; + __float128 a; int b; } c; -__ieee128 -d (__ieee128 x) +__float128 +d (__float128 x) { - __ieee128 g; + __float128 g; c h; h.a = x; g = h.b & 5;