Bill:
> >
> > I don't see any tests for the two built-in entries in rs6000-c.c which the
> > patch moves, i.e.
> >
> > { P8V_BUILTIN_VEC_VGBBD, P8V_BUILTIN_VGBBD,
> >
> > RS6000_BTI_V16QI, 0, 0, 0 },
> >
> > { P8V_BUILTIN_VEC_VGBBD, P8V_BUILTIN_VGBBD,
> >
> > RS6000_BTI_unsigned_V16QI, 0, 0, 0 },
> >
>
> Those two entries look bogus to me, and they should just be removed, not
> moved. I have no idea where they came from. I suspect they were
> place-holders at one time that snuck into the code by accident.
>
> The relevant API interface listed in the ELFv2 ABI is vec_gb, which
> should support only one interface:
>
> vector unsigned char vec_gb (vector unsigned char);
>
> So please remove the two bogus interfaces, and make sure we have support
> for the vec_gb interface in your GCC 8 patch list. Thanks!
Taking this off list.
Bill sorry I missed your email this morning before I committed the patch
that moved the vec_vgbbd. I agree the two vec_gbbd entries look bogus
to me. There is a test in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/p8vector-builtin-8.c
for the vec_gb() interface you mentioned from the ABI that covers this
case.
I will create and test a patch to remove the bogus entries. I will then
roll it into a single patch that fixes the vex_packs entries and adds
the missing vex_packs tests. I will then back port the single patch to
GCC-5 and GCC-6. I will post the back ported patches to the list in a
week or so assuming no issues arise with the changes to mainline.
Does that all sound reasonable?
Carl Love
