On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:28:37AM -0800, Carl E. Love wrote: > The following patch fixes an issue with the entries in the table of > built-in functions. All of the entries for a given built-in, must occur > in the table as a single block of entries. Otherwise the code that > searches the table for a given built-in definition will stop looking > once it reaches the end of the initial block of definitions for that > built-in function and subsequent definitions for that built-in will > never be checked. This issue currently occurs with the > ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_PACKS and P8V_BUILTIN_VEC_VGBBD built-ins. The > patch simply moves the existing entries so the definition for a given > built-in are all together in the same block of entries.
Do we need a separate testcase to check for this? Or do those specific builtins need better testcases? Or was the bug obvious already? > Note this issue also exists with the GCC-5 and GCC-6 branches. > > The patch has been tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (Power 8 LE) > with no regressions. > > Is the patch OK for trunk? Yes, thanks! > Assuming this patch is OK, would it be acceptable to post a back port of > the patch for GCC 5 and GCC 6 branches after the patch is in mainline as > long as no issues are seen with this version in the mainline code base? Right; let it simmer on mainline for a while, and then it is approved for backport (if it is the same patch; otherwise please post the version of the patch you checked in to the branches). Do send an email noting you backported it to which branches. Segher > 2017-01-23 Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-c (altivec_overloaded_builtins): Fix order > of entries for ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_PACKS and P8V_BUILTIN_VEC_VGBBD.
