| Message ID | 20200613035546.22041-1-ljp@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] target/ppc: add vmsumudm vmsumcud instructions | expand |
On 6/12/20 8:55 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: > vmsumudm (Power ISA 3.0) - Vector Multiply-Sum Unsigned Doubleword Modulo > VA-form. > vmsumcud (Power ISA 3.1) - Vector Multiply-Sum & write Carry-out Unsigned > Doubleword VA-form. > > Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <ljp@linux.ibm.com> > --- > v2: move vmsumcudm() to qemu/int128.h as Richard Henderson suggested, > also rename addu128() to uint128_add() and include it in qemu/int128.h > > disas/ppc.c | 2 + > include/qemu/int128.h | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > target/ppc/helper.h | 4 +- > target/ppc/int_helper.c | 19 +++++- > target/ppc/translate.c | 1 - > target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c | 39 ++++++------ > target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c | 2 + > 7 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/disas/ppc.c b/disas/ppc.c > index 63e97cfe1d..3ed4d23ed3 100644 > --- a/disas/ppc.c > +++ b/disas/ppc.c > @@ -2261,7 +2261,9 @@ const struct powerpc_opcode powerpc_opcodes[] = { > { "vmsumshs", VXA(4, 41), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > { "vmsumubm", VXA(4, 36), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > { "vmsumuhm", VXA(4, 38), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > +{ "vmsumudm", VXA(4, 35), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > { "vmsumuhs", VXA(4, 39), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > +{ "vmsumcud", VXA(4, 23), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, > { "vmulesb", VX(4, 776), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, > { "vmulesh", VX(4, 840), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, > { "vmuleub", VX(4, 520), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, > diff --git a/include/qemu/int128.h b/include/qemu/int128.h > index 5c9890db8b..3362973cc5 100644 > --- a/include/qemu/int128.h > +++ b/include/qemu/int128.h > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 > #include "qemu/bswap.h" > +#include "qemu/host-utils.h" > > typedef __int128_t Int128; > > @@ -143,6 +144,55 @@ static inline Int128 bswap128(Int128 a) > return int128_make128(bswap64(int128_gethi(a)), bswap64(int128_getlo(a))); > } > > +/** > + * uint128_add - add two 128-bit values (r=a+b, ca=carry-out) > + * @ah: high 64 bits of a > + * @al: low 64 bits of a > + * @bh: high 64 bits of b > + * @bl: low 64 bits of b > + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned > + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned > + * @ca: carry out to be returned. > + */ > +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, > + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) > +{ > + __uint128_t a = (__uint128_t)ah << 64 | (__uint128_t)al; > + __uint128_t b = (__uint128_t)bh << 64 | (__uint128_t)bl; > + __uint128_t r = a + b; > + > + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); > + *rl = (uint64_t)r; > + *ca = (~a < b); > +} This is *not* what I had in mind at all. int128.h should be operating on Int128, and *not* component uint64_t values. > + > +/** > + * mulsum - (rh, rl) = ah*bh + al*bl + (ch, cl) > + * @ah: high 64 bits of a > + * @al: low 64 bits of a > + * @bh: high 64 bits of b > + * @bl: low 64 bits of b > + * @ch: high 64 bits of c > + * @cl: low 64 bits of c > + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned > + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned > + * @ca: carry-out to be returned. > + */ > +static inline void mulsum(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, > + uint64_t bl, uint64_t ch, uint64_t cl, uint64_t *rh, > + uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) > +{ > + __uint128_t prod1, prod2, r; > + __uint128_t c = (__uint128_t)ch << 64 | (__uint128_t)cl; > + > + prod1 = (__uint128_t)ah * (__uint128_t)bh; > + prod2 = (__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl; > + r = prod1 + prod2 + c; > + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); > + *rl = (uint64_t)r; > + *ca = (~prod1 < prod2) + (~c < (prod1 + prod2)); > +} Why is mulsum an interesting primitive for int128.h? I would think int128_mul and int128_add sufficient here. I did not ask you to place the entire ppc instruction in int128.h. r~
> On Jun 15, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 6/12/20 8:55 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: >> vmsumudm (Power ISA 3.0) - Vector Multiply-Sum Unsigned Doubleword Modulo >> VA-form. >> vmsumcud (Power ISA 3.1) - Vector Multiply-Sum & write Carry-out Unsigned >> Doubleword VA-form. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <ljp@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> v2: move vmsumcudm() to qemu/int128.h as Richard Henderson suggested, >> also rename addu128() to uint128_add() and include it in qemu/int128.h >> >> disas/ppc.c | 2 + >> include/qemu/int128.h | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> target/ppc/helper.h | 4 +- >> target/ppc/int_helper.c | 19 +++++- >> target/ppc/translate.c | 1 - >> target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c | 39 ++++++------ >> target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c | 2 + >> 7 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/disas/ppc.c b/disas/ppc.c >> index 63e97cfe1d..3ed4d23ed3 100644 >> --- a/disas/ppc.c >> +++ b/disas/ppc.c >> @@ -2261,7 +2261,9 @@ const struct powerpc_opcode powerpc_opcodes[] = { >> { "vmsumshs", VXA(4, 41), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> { "vmsumubm", VXA(4, 36), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> { "vmsumuhm", VXA(4, 38), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> +{ "vmsumudm", VXA(4, 35), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> { "vmsumuhs", VXA(4, 39), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> +{ "vmsumcud", VXA(4, 23), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, >> { "vmulesb", VX(4, 776), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, >> { "vmulesh", VX(4, 840), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, >> { "vmuleub", VX(4, 520), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, >> diff --git a/include/qemu/int128.h b/include/qemu/int128.h >> index 5c9890db8b..3362973cc5 100644 >> --- a/include/qemu/int128.h >> +++ b/include/qemu/int128.h >> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 >> #include "qemu/bswap.h" >> +#include "qemu/host-utils.h" >> >> typedef __int128_t Int128; >> >> @@ -143,6 +144,55 @@ static inline Int128 bswap128(Int128 a) >> return int128_make128(bswap64(int128_gethi(a)), bswap64(int128_getlo(a))); >> } >> >> +/** >> + * uint128_add - add two 128-bit values (r=a+b, ca=carry-out) >> + * @ah: high 64 bits of a >> + * @al: low 64 bits of a >> + * @bh: high 64 bits of b >> + * @bl: low 64 bits of b >> + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned >> + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned >> + * @ca: carry out to be returned. >> + */ >> +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, >> + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) >> +{ >> + __uint128_t a = (__uint128_t)ah << 64 | (__uint128_t)al; >> + __uint128_t b = (__uint128_t)bh << 64 | (__uint128_t)bl; >> + __uint128_t r = a + b; >> + >> + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); >> + *rl = (uint64_t)r; >> + *ca = (~a < b); >> +} > > This is *not* what I had in mind at all. > > int128.h should be operating on Int128, and *not* component uint64_t values. Should uint128_add() be included in a new file called uint128.h? or still at host-utils.h? > > >> + >> +/** >> + * mulsum - (rh, rl) = ah*bh + al*bl + (ch, cl) >> + * @ah: high 64 bits of a >> + * @al: low 64 bits of a >> + * @bh: high 64 bits of b >> + * @bl: low 64 bits of b >> + * @ch: high 64 bits of c >> + * @cl: low 64 bits of c >> + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned >> + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned >> + * @ca: carry-out to be returned. >> + */ >> +static inline void mulsum(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, >> + uint64_t bl, uint64_t ch, uint64_t cl, uint64_t *rh, >> + uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) >> +{ >> + __uint128_t prod1, prod2, r; >> + __uint128_t c = (__uint128_t)ch << 64 | (__uint128_t)cl; >> + >> + prod1 = (__uint128_t)ah * (__uint128_t)bh; >> + prod2 = (__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl; >> + r = prod1 + prod2 + c; >> + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); >> + *rl = (uint64_t)r; >> + *ca = (~prod1 < prod2) + (~c < (prod1 + prod2)); >> +} > > Why is mulsum an interesting primitive for int128.h? > I would think int128_mul and int128_add sufficient here. But prod1, prod2, r are unsigned 128-bit values. Changing above code to the following implementation doesn’t seem right. prod1 = int128_mul((__uint128_t)ah, (__uint128_t)bh); prod2 = int128_mul((__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl); r = int128_add(prod1, prod2); r = int128_add(r, c); Maybe you mean using uint128_mul & uint128_add? > > I did not ask you to place the entire ppc instruction in int128.h. vmsumudm/vmsumcud operate as follows: 1. 128-bit prod1 = (high 64 bits of a) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() 2. 128-bit prod2 = (high 64 bits of b) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() 3. 128-bit result = prod1 + prod2 + c; // I added addu128() in v1, renamed it to uint128_add() in v2 vmsumudm takes the result, vmsumcud takes the carry-out v1 patch adds addu128() in host-utils.h and reuse the mulu64() from host-utils.h. To better understand your request, may I ask you several questions: 1. keep mulsum() in target/ppc/int_helper.c? If so, it will inevitably have #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 #else #endif in that function. 2. still add addu128()/uint128_add() in host-utils.h? 3. Do you want int128_mul() to replace mulu64()? 4. Do you want int128_add() to relace uint128_add()? 5. If I add int128_mul and int128_add, shouldn’t I also add uint128_mul and uint128_add? should I also create uint128.h to include uint128_add & uint128_mul? Thanks, Lijun
On 6/15/20 1:53 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: >>> +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, >>> + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) >>> +{ >>> + __uint128_t a = (__uint128_t)ah << 64 | (__uint128_t)al; >>> + __uint128_t b = (__uint128_t)bh << 64 | (__uint128_t)bl; >>> + __uint128_t r = a + b; >>> + >>> + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); >>> + *rl = (uint64_t)r; >>> + *ca = (~a < b); >>> +} >> >> This is *not* what I had in mind at all. >> >> int128.h should be operating on Int128, and *not* component uint64_t values. > > Should uint128_add() be included in a new file called uint128.h? or still at host-utils.h? If you want this sort of specific operation, you should leave it in target/ppc/. I had been hoping that you could make use of Int128 as-is, or with minimal adjustment in the same style. > vmsumudm/vmsumcud operate as follows: > 1. 128-bit prod1 = (high 64 bits of a) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() > 2. 128-bit prod2 = (high 64 bits of b) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() > 3. 128-bit result = prod1 + prod2 + c; // I added addu128() in v1, renamed it to uint128_add() in v2 Really? That seems a very odd computation. Your code, > + prod1 = (__uint128_t)ah * (__uint128_t)bh; > + prod2 = (__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl; > + r = prod1 + prod2 + c; is slightly different, but still very odd. Why would we be adding the intermediate 128th bit of the 256-bit product (prod1, bit 0) with the 0th bit of the 256-bit product (prod2, bit 0). Unfortunately, I can't find the v3.1 spec online yet, so I can't look at this myself. What is the instruction supposed to produce? > To better understand your request, may I ask you several questions: > 1. keep mulsum() in target/ppc/int_helper.c? Probably. > If so, it will inevitably have #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 #else #endif in that function. No, you don't have to ifdef. You can use uint64_t alone and not rely on compiler support for __uint128_t at all. r~
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 6:09 PM, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 6/15/20 1:53 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: >>>> +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, >>>> + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) >>>> +{ >>>> + __uint128_t a = (__uint128_t)ah << 64 | (__uint128_t)al; >>>> + __uint128_t b = (__uint128_t)bh << 64 | (__uint128_t)bl; >>>> + __uint128_t r = a + b; >>>> + >>>> + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); >>>> + *rl = (uint64_t)r; >>>> + *ca = (~a < b); >>>> +} >>> >>> This is *not* what I had in mind at all. >>> >>> int128.h should be operating on Int128, and *not* component uint64_t values. >> >> Should uint128_add() be included in a new file called uint128.h? or still at host-utils.h? > > If you want this sort of specific operation, you should leave it in target/ppc/. > > I had been hoping that you could make use of Int128 as-is, or with minimal > adjustment in the same style. > >> vmsumudm/vmsumcud operate as follows: >> 1. 128-bit prod1 = (high 64 bits of a) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() This is an implementation not relying on 128 bit compiler support (not defined CONFIG_INT128), hence using mulu64(). >> 2. 128-bit prod2 = (high 64 bits of b) * (high 64 bits of b), // I reuse mulu64() >> 3. 128-bit result = prod1 + prod2 + c; // I added addu128() in v1, renamed it to uint128_add() in v2 > > Really? That seems a very odd computation. Your code, > >> + prod1 = (__uint128_t)ah * (__uint128_t)bh; >> + prod2 = (__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl; >> + r = prod1 + prod2 + c; > > is slightly different, but still very odd. Above 3 lines of code are using 128 bit compiler suppor (#ifdef CONFIG_INT128). > > Why would we be adding the intermediate 128th bit of the 256-bit product > (prod1, bit 0) with the 0th bit of the 256-bit product (prod2, bit 0). > > Unfortunately, I can't find the v3.1 spec online yet, so I can't look at this > myself. What is the instruction supposed to produce? https://ibm.ent.box.com/s/hhjfw0x0lrbtyzmiaffnbxh2fuo0fog0 > >> To better understand your request, may I ask you several questions: >> 1. keep mulsum() in target/ppc/int_helper.c? > > Probably. > >> If so, it will inevitably have #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 #else #endif in that function. > > No, you don't have to ifdef. You can use uint64_t alone and not rely on > compiler support for __uint128_t at all. > > > r~ >
On 6/18/20 10:10 PM, Lijun Pan wrote: >> Unfortunately, I can't find the v3.1 spec online yet, so I can't look at this >> myself. What is the instruction supposed to produce? > > https://ibm.ent.box.com/s/hhjfw0x0lrbtyzmiaffnbxh2fuo0fog0 Thank you. So it really is the sum of an input and two separate 64x64->128 bit multiplies. I suggest void helper_vmsumudm(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) { Int128 sum; uint64_t lo, hi; sum = int128_make128(c->VsrD(1), c->VsrD(0)); mulu64(&lo, &hi, a->VsrD(0), b->VsrD(0)); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(lo, hi)); mulu64(&lo, &hi, a->VsrD(1), b->VsrD(1)); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(lo, hi)); r->VsrD(0) = int128_gethi(sum); r->VsrD(1) = int128_getlo(sum); } void helper_vmsumcud(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) { Int128 sum; uint64_t p1lo, p1hi, p2lo, p2hi; mulu64(&p1lo, &p1hi, a->VsrD(0), b->VsrD(0)); mulu64(&p2lo, &p2hi, a->VsrD(1), b->VsrD(1)); /* Sum lowest 64-bit elements. */ sum = int128_make128(c->VsrD(1), 0); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(p1lo, 0)); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(p2lo, 0)); /* * Discard low 64-bits, leaving the carry into bit 64. * Then sum the higher 64-bit elements. */ sum = int128_rshift(sum, 64); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(c->VsrD(0), 0)); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(p1hi, 0)); sum = int128_add(sum, int128_make128(p2hi, 0)); /* The result is only the carry into bits 64 & 65. */ r->VsrD(1) = int128_gethi(sum); r->VsrD(0) = 0; } r~
diff --git a/disas/ppc.c b/disas/ppc.c index 63e97cfe1d..3ed4d23ed3 100644 --- a/disas/ppc.c +++ b/disas/ppc.c @@ -2261,7 +2261,9 @@ const struct powerpc_opcode powerpc_opcodes[] = { { "vmsumshs", VXA(4, 41), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, { "vmsumubm", VXA(4, 36), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, { "vmsumuhm", VXA(4, 38), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, +{ "vmsumudm", VXA(4, 35), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, { "vmsumuhs", VXA(4, 39), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, +{ "vmsumcud", VXA(4, 23), VXA_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB, VC } }, { "vmulesb", VX(4, 776), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, { "vmulesh", VX(4, 840), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, { "vmuleub", VX(4, 520), VX_MASK, PPCVEC, { VD, VA, VB } }, diff --git a/include/qemu/int128.h b/include/qemu/int128.h index 5c9890db8b..3362973cc5 100644 --- a/include/qemu/int128.h +++ b/include/qemu/int128.h @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ #ifdef CONFIG_INT128 #include "qemu/bswap.h" +#include "qemu/host-utils.h" typedef __int128_t Int128; @@ -143,6 +144,55 @@ static inline Int128 bswap128(Int128 a) return int128_make128(bswap64(int128_gethi(a)), bswap64(int128_getlo(a))); } +/** + * uint128_add - add two 128-bit values (r=a+b, ca=carry-out) + * @ah: high 64 bits of a + * @al: low 64 bits of a + * @bh: high 64 bits of b + * @bl: low 64 bits of b + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned + * @ca: carry out to be returned. + */ +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) +{ + __uint128_t a = (__uint128_t)ah << 64 | (__uint128_t)al; + __uint128_t b = (__uint128_t)bh << 64 | (__uint128_t)bl; + __uint128_t r = a + b; + + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); + *rl = (uint64_t)r; + *ca = (~a < b); +} + +/** + * mulsum - (rh, rl) = ah*bh + al*bl + (ch, cl) + * @ah: high 64 bits of a + * @al: low 64 bits of a + * @bh: high 64 bits of b + * @bl: low 64 bits of b + * @ch: high 64 bits of c + * @cl: low 64 bits of c + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned + * @ca: carry-out to be returned. + */ +static inline void mulsum(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, + uint64_t bl, uint64_t ch, uint64_t cl, uint64_t *rh, + uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) +{ + __uint128_t prod1, prod2, r; + __uint128_t c = (__uint128_t)ch << 64 | (__uint128_t)cl; + + prod1 = (__uint128_t)ah * (__uint128_t)bh; + prod2 = (__uint128_t)al * (__uint128_t)bl; + r = prod1 + prod2 + c; + *rh = (uint64_t)(r >> 64); + *rl = (uint64_t)r; + *ca = (~prod1 < prod2) + (~c < (prod1 + prod2)); +} + #else /* !CONFIG_INT128 */ typedef struct Int128 Int128; @@ -301,5 +351,52 @@ static inline void int128_subfrom(Int128 *a, Int128 b) *a = int128_sub(*a, b); } +/** + * uint128_add - add two 128-bit values (r=a+b, ca=carry-out) + * @ah: high 64 bits of a + * @al: low 64 bits of a + * @bh: high 64 bits of b + * @bl: low 64 bits of b + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned + * @ca: carry out to be returned. + */ +static inline void uint128_add(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, + uint64_t bl, uint64_t *rh, uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) +{ + uint64_t lo = al + bl; + uint64_t hi = ah + bh + (~al < bl); + uint64_t hi_t = ah + bh; + uint64_t carry = (~ah < bh) + (~hi_t < (~al < bl)); + + *rl = lo; + *rh = hi; + *ca = carry; +} + +/** + * mulsum - (rh, rl) = ah*bh + al*bl + (ch, cl) + * @ah: high 64 bits of a + * @al: low 64 bits of a + * @bh: high 64 bits of b + * @bl: low 64 bits of b + * @ch: high 64 bits of c + * @cl: low 64 bits of c + * @rh: high 64 bits of r to be returned + * @rl: low 64 bits of r to be returned + * @ca: carry-out to be returned. + */ +static inline void mulsum(uint64_t ah, uint64_t al, uint64_t bh, + uint64_t bl, uint64_t ch, uint64_t cl, uint64_t *rh, + uint64_t *rl, uint64_t *ca) +{ + uint64_t p1h, p1l, p2h, p2l, sh, sl, ca1, ca2; + mulu64(&p1l, &p1h ,ah, bh); + mulu64(&p2l, &p2h ,al, bl); + uint128_add(p1h, p1l, p2h, p2l, &sh, &sl, &ca1); + uint128_add(sh, sl, ch, cl, rh, rl, &ca2); + *ca = ca1 + ca2; +} + #endif /* CONFIG_INT128 */ #endif /* INT128_H */ diff --git a/target/ppc/helper.h b/target/ppc/helper.h index 2dfa1c6942..d540e8f30b 100644 --- a/target/ppc/helper.h +++ b/target/ppc/helper.h @@ -263,10 +263,12 @@ DEF_HELPER_3(vpkpx, void, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmhaddshs, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmhraddshs, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumuhm, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) +DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumudm, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumuhs, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumshm, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumshs, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) -DEF_HELPER_4(vmladduhm, void, avr, avr, avr, avr) +DEF_HELPER_5(vmsumcud, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) +DEF_HELPER_5(vmladduhm, void, env, avr, avr, avr, avr) DEF_HELPER_FLAGS_2(mtvscr, TCG_CALL_NO_RWG, void, env, i32) DEF_HELPER_FLAGS_1(mfvscr, TCG_CALL_NO_RWG, i32, env) DEF_HELPER_3(lvebx, void, env, avr, tl) diff --git a/target/ppc/int_helper.c b/target/ppc/int_helper.c index be53cd6f68..5f257b7b86 100644 --- a/target/ppc/int_helper.c +++ b/target/ppc/int_helper.c @@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ void helper_vmhraddshs(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, } } -void helper_vmladduhm(ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) +void helper_vmladduhm(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, + ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) { int i; @@ -1064,6 +1065,22 @@ void helper_vmsumuhs(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, } } +void helper_vmsumudm(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, + ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) +{ + uint64_t ca; + mulsum(a->VsrD(0), a->VsrD(1), b->VsrD(0), b->VsrD(1), c->VsrD(0), c->VsrD(1), + &r->VsrD(0), &r->VsrD(1), &ca); +} +void helper_vmsumcud(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, + ppc_avr_t *b, ppc_avr_t *c) +{ + uint64_t rh, rl; + mulsum(a->VsrD(0), a->VsrD(1), b->VsrD(0), b->VsrD(1), c->VsrD(0), c->VsrD(1), + &rh, &rl, &r->VsrD(1)); + r->VsrD(0) = 0; +} + #define VMUL_DO_EVN(name, mul_element, mul_access, prod_access, cast) \ void helper_v##name(ppc_avr_t *r, ppc_avr_t *a, ppc_avr_t *b) \ { \ diff --git a/target/ppc/translate.c b/target/ppc/translate.c index 4ce3d664b5..35ff1aa77e 100644 --- a/target/ppc/translate.c +++ b/target/ppc/translate.c @@ -7281,7 +7281,6 @@ GEN_HANDLER(lvsl, 0x1f, 0x06, 0x00, 0x00000001, PPC_ALTIVEC), GEN_HANDLER(lvsr, 0x1f, 0x06, 0x01, 0x00000001, PPC_ALTIVEC), GEN_HANDLER(mfvscr, 0x04, 0x2, 0x18, 0x001ff800, PPC_ALTIVEC), GEN_HANDLER(mtvscr, 0x04, 0x2, 0x19, 0x03ff0000, PPC_ALTIVEC), -GEN_HANDLER(vmladduhm, 0x04, 0x11, 0xFF, 0x00000000, PPC_ALTIVEC), #if defined(TARGET_PPC64) GEN_HANDLER_E(maddhd_maddhdu, 0x04, 0x18, 0xFF, 0x00000000, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA300), diff --git a/target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c b/target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c index 403ed3a01c..5c0e44d7fb 100644 --- a/target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c +++ b/target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c @@ -1248,6 +1248,25 @@ static void gen_vsldoi(DisasContext *ctx) tcg_temp_free_i32(sh); } +#define GEN_VAFORM(name, opc2) \ +static void glue(gen_, name)(DisasContext *ctx) \ +{ \ + TCGv_ptr ra, rb, rc, rd; \ + if (unlikely(!ctx->altivec_enabled)) { \ + gen_exception(ctx, POWERPC_EXCP_VPU); \ + return; \ + } \ + ra = gen_avr_ptr(rA(ctx->opcode)); \ + rb = gen_avr_ptr(rB(ctx->opcode)); \ + rc = gen_avr_ptr(rC(ctx->opcode)); \ + rd = gen_avr_ptr(rD(ctx->opcode)); \ + gen_helper_##name(cpu_env, rd, ra, rb, rc); \ + tcg_temp_free_ptr(ra); \ + tcg_temp_free_ptr(rb); \ + tcg_temp_free_ptr(rc); \ + tcg_temp_free_ptr(rd); \ +} + #define GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(name0, name1, opc2) \ static void glue(gen_, name0##_##name1)(DisasContext *ctx) \ { \ @@ -1272,24 +1291,8 @@ static void glue(gen_, name0##_##name1)(DisasContext *ctx) \ } GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmhaddshs, vmhraddshs, 16) - -static void gen_vmladduhm(DisasContext *ctx) -{ - TCGv_ptr ra, rb, rc, rd; - if (unlikely(!ctx->altivec_enabled)) { - gen_exception(ctx, POWERPC_EXCP_VPU); - return; - } - ra = gen_avr_ptr(rA(ctx->opcode)); - rb = gen_avr_ptr(rB(ctx->opcode)); - rc = gen_avr_ptr(rC(ctx->opcode)); - rd = gen_avr_ptr(rD(ctx->opcode)); - gen_helper_vmladduhm(rd, ra, rb, rc); - tcg_temp_free_ptr(ra); - tcg_temp_free_ptr(rb); - tcg_temp_free_ptr(rc); - tcg_temp_free_ptr(rd); -} +GEN_VAFORM(vmsumcud, 11) +GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmladduhm, vmsumudm, 17) static void gen_vpermr(DisasContext *ctx) { diff --git a/target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c b/target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c index 84e05fb827..aee23e31c6 100644 --- a/target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c +++ b/target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c @@ -276,6 +276,8 @@ GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmsumuhm, vmsumuhs, 19), GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmsumshm, vmsumshs, 20), GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vsel, vperm, 21), GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmaddfp, vnmsubfp, 23), +GEN_HANDLER(vmsumcud, 0x4, 11, 0xFF, 0x00000000, PPC_ALTIVEC), +GEN_VAFORM_PAIRED(vmladduhm, vmsumudm, 17), GEN_VXFORM_DUAL(vclzb, vpopcntb, 1, 28, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ALTIVEC_207), GEN_VXFORM_DUAL(vclzh, vpopcnth, 1, 29, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ALTIVEC_207),
vmsumudm (Power ISA 3.0) - Vector Multiply-Sum Unsigned Doubleword Modulo VA-form. vmsumcud (Power ISA 3.1) - Vector Multiply-Sum & write Carry-out Unsigned Doubleword VA-form. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <ljp@linux.ibm.com> --- v2: move vmsumcudm() to qemu/int128.h as Richard Henderson suggested, also rename addu128() to uint128_add() and include it in qemu/int128.h disas/ppc.c | 2 + include/qemu/int128.h | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ target/ppc/helper.h | 4 +- target/ppc/int_helper.c | 19 +++++- target/ppc/translate.c | 1 - target/ppc/translate/vmx-impl.inc.c | 39 ++++++------ target/ppc/translate/vmx-ops.inc.c | 2 + 7 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)