| Message ID | d1a586b3-b1e9-4dba-9a9b-07f3dce4915b@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/11] rs6000, Fix __builtin_vsx_cmple* args and documentation, builtins | expand |
Hi, on 2024/2/21 01:56, Carl Love wrote: > GCC maintainers: > > The patch expands an existing comment to document that the duplicates are covered by an overloaded built-in. I am wondering if we should just go ahead and remove the duplicates? As the below comments Bill placed before, I think we should remove them, since users should use the standard interface vec_perm which is defined by PVIPR. They are not undocumented at all, in case some users are still using such builtins they should switch to use vec_perm instead, so even if it's stage 4 now, it looks still fine to drop them IMHO. Segher & Peter, what do you think of this? BR, Kewen > > The patch has been tested on Power 10 with no regressions. > > Please let me know if this patch is acceptable for mainline. Thanks. > > Carl > > ----------------------------------------------------- > rs6000, Update comment for the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins. > > There is a comment about the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins being > duplicates of the __builtin_altivec_* built-ins. The note says we > should consider deprecation/removeal of the __builtin_vsx_vper*. Add a > note that the _builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins are covered by the overloaded > vec_perm built-ins which use the __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def ( __builtin_vsx_vperm_*): > Add comment to existing comment about the built-ins. > --- > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def > index 96d095da2cb..4c95429f137 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def > @@ -1556,6 +1556,14 @@ > ; These are duplicates of __builtin_altivec_* counterparts, and are being > ; kept for backwards compatibility. The reason for their existence is > ; unclear. TODO: Consider deprecation/removal at some point. > +; Note, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi_uns, > +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_1ti, __builtin_vsx_vperm_v1ti_uns, > +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2df, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di, > +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di_uns, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4sf, > +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si_uns, > +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_8hi, __builtin_altivec_vperm_8hi_uns > +; are all covered by the overloaded vec_perm built-in which uses the > +; __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions. > const vsc __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi (vsc, vsc, vuc); > VPERM_16QI_X altivec_vperm_v16qi {} >
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def index 96d095da2cb..4c95429f137 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def @@ -1556,6 +1556,14 @@ ; These are duplicates of __builtin_altivec_* counterparts, and are being ; kept for backwards compatibility. The reason for their existence is ; unclear. TODO: Consider deprecation/removal at some point. +; Note, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi, __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi_uns, +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_1ti, __builtin_vsx_vperm_v1ti_uns, +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2df, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di, __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di, +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_2di_uns, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4sf, +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si, __builtin_vsx_vperm_4si_uns, +; __builtin_vsx_vperm_8hi, __builtin_altivec_vperm_8hi_uns +; are all covered by the overloaded vec_perm built-in which uses the +; __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions. const vsc __builtin_vsx_vperm_16qi (vsc, vsc, vuc); VPERM_16QI_X altivec_vperm_v16qi {}
GCC maintainers: The patch expands an existing comment to document that the duplicates are covered by an overloaded built-in. I am wondering if we should just go ahead and remove the duplicates? The patch has been tested on Power 10 with no regressions. Please let me know if this patch is acceptable for mainline. Thanks. Carl ----------------------------------------------------- rs6000, Update comment for the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins. There is a comment about the __builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins being duplicates of the __builtin_altivec_* built-ins. The note says we should consider deprecation/removeal of the __builtin_vsx_vper*. Add a note that the _builtin_vsx_vper* built-ins are covered by the overloaded vec_perm built-ins which use the __builtin_altivec_* built-in definitions. gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def ( __builtin_vsx_vperm_*): Add comment to existing comment about the built-ins. --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)