On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 05:06:14PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: Hi Mike, > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_hard_regno_nregs_internal): Add > support for __float128 complex datatypes. > (rs6000_hard_regno_mode_ok): Likewise. > (rs6000_setup_reg_addr_masks): Likewise. > (rs6000_complex_function_value): Likewise. > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.h (FLOAT128_IEEE_P): Add support for > __float128 and __ibm128 complex. > (FLOAT128_IBM_P): Likewise. > (ALTIVEC_COMPLEX): Likewise. > (ALTIVEC_ARG_MAX_RETURN): Likewise. > > * doc/extend.texi (Additional Floating Types): Document that > -mfloat128 must be used to enable __float128. Document complex > __float128 and __ibm128 support. > > [gcc/testsuite] > 2016-04-28 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > * gcc.target/powerpc/float128-complex-1.c: New test for complex > __float128.
It is more normal to not have blank lines between files in the changelog. > #define FLOAT128_IEEE_P(MODE) > \ > - (((MODE) == TFmode && TARGET_IEEEQUAD) \ > - || ((MODE) == KFmode)) > + ((TARGET_IEEEQUAD && ((MODE) == TFmode || (MODE) == TCmode)) > \ > + || ((MODE) == KFmode) || ((MODE) == KCmode)) > > #define FLOAT128_IBM_P(MODE) \ > - (((MODE) == TFmode && !TARGET_IEEEQUAD) \ > - || ((MODE) == IFmode)) > + ((!TARGET_IEEEQUAD && ((MODE) == TFmode || (MODE) == TCmode)) > \ > + || ((MODE) == IFmode) || ((MODE) == ICmode)) Maybe these should be inline functions now? > +/* _Complex __float128 needs two registers. */ > +#define ALTIVEC_COMPLEX ((TARGET_FLOAT128) ? 1 : 0) This name is pretty confusing, way too generic too. It is only used right below, you can just code it there? > /* Return registers */ > #define GP_ARG_RETURN GP_ARG_MIN_REG > #define FP_ARG_RETURN FP_ARG_MIN_REG > #define ALTIVEC_ARG_RETURN (FIRST_ALTIVEC_REGNO + 2) > #define FP_ARG_MAX_RETURN (DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_ELFv2 ? FP_ARG_RETURN \ > : (FP_ARG_RETURN + AGGR_ARG_NUM_REG - 1)) > -#define ALTIVEC_ARG_MAX_RETURN (DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_ELFv2 ? > ALTIVEC_ARG_RETURN \ > +#define ALTIVEC_ARG_MAX_RETURN (DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_ELFv2 \ > + ? (ALTIVEC_ARG_RETURN + ALTIVEC_COMPLEX) \ > : (ALTIVEC_ARG_RETURN + AGGR_ARG_NUM_REG - 1)) So you are changing the ABI here (for non-v2). Are there any complications to that, is it compatible in all cases? > -#define PRINT_OPERAND_PUNCT_VALID_P(CODE) ((CODE) == '&') > +#define PRINT_OPERAND_PUNCT_VALID_P(CODE) ((CODE) == '&' || (CODE) == '@') I think you mixed this in from another change? Segher
