On 09/22/2017 06:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Santos <daniel.san...@pobox.com> >> wrote: >>> On 09/22/2017 03:28 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>>> On 09/22/2017 02:18 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09/21/2017 05:18 PM, Daniel Santos wrote: >>>>>>>> So libgcc doesn't use a config.in. :( >>>>>>> Scratch that, I forgot that we're using gcc/config.in via auto-host.h. >>>>>>> So I only have to add this to gcc/configure.ac and it will be available >>>>>>> for my libgcc header -- this is what I used to sniff out support for the >>>>>>> .hidden directive. >>>>>> Please don't go that route: it's totally the wrong direction. There's >>>>>> work going on to further decouple libgcc from gcc-private headers and >>>>>> configure results. libgcc already has its own configure tests for >>>>>> assembler features, and its own config.in. What's wrong with adapting >>>>>> libitm's avx test in libitm/acinclude.m4 (LIBITM_CHECK_AS_AVX) for >>>>>> libgcc? Should be trivial... >>>>>> >>>>>> Rainer >>>>>> >>>>> Oops, I just saw your email after submitting my other patch. Yes, I am >>>>> mistaken about config.in, sorry about that. I didn't see a config.h >>>>> file, but examining further it looks like it outputs to auto-target.h. >>>>> Also, I was looking for some HAVE_AS* macros, but they are named >>>>> differently. >>>> Right: though some are for assembler features, the macros are named >>>> differently. >>>> >>>>> I had previously included gcc's auto-host.h since it was in the include >>>>> path in order to use HAVE_AS_HIDDEN, so in order to decouple this I'll >>>> HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN actually ;-) >>>> >>>>> need to add that check into libgcc/configure.ac as well. Again, >>>>> shouldn't be that much code. Sound sane to you? >>>> You could do that, but it was already used before your patches, so >>>> please separate it from the current issue if you go down that route. >>>> libgcc is still full of cleanup possibilities :-) >>>> >>>> Rainer >>> OK, so I'm just adding HAVE_AS_AVX mostly as-is from libitm (we don't >>> have $target_cpu so I'm using $target). I do have minor concerns about >>> how this test will work on a cross-build -- I'm not an autotools expert >>> and I don't understand which assembler it will invoke, but the results >>> of the test failing only means we use .byte instead of the real >>> mnemonic, so it really shouldn't be a problem. >>> >>> I've got tests started again, so presuming that *this* one passes, is it >>> OK for the trunk? >>> >>> gcc/testsuite: >>> * gcc.target/i386/pr82196-1.c: Simplify so that it doesn't break >>> on Solaris or with -mno-omit-frame-pointer. >> No need to explain the change in the ChangeLog. Just say "(b): Remove >> volatile asm." >> >>> * gcc.target/i386/pr82196-2.c: Likewise. >>> >>> libgcc: >>> * configure.ac: Add check for HAVE_AS_AVX. >>> * config.in: Regenerate. >>> * configure: Likewise. >>> * config/i386/i386-asm.h: Include auto-target.h from libgcc. >>> (SSE_SAVE, SSE_RESTORE): Sniff HAVE_AS_AVX and directly emit raw >>> .byte code when assembler doesn't support avx, correct >>> out-of-date comments. >> (SSE_SAVE, SSE_RESTORE): Emit .byte sequence for !HAVE_AS_AVX. >> Correct out-of-date comments. >> >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82196-1.c | 5 ++- >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82196-2.c | 5 ++- >>> libgcc/config.in | 3 ++ >>> libgcc/config/i386/i386-asm.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>> libgcc/configure | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> libgcc/configure.ac | 16 ++++++++++ >>> 6 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> #ifdef MS2SYSV_STUB_AVX >> # define MS2SYSV_STUB_PREFIX __avx_ >> -# define MOVAPS vmovaps >> +# ifdef HAVE_AS_AVX >> +# define MOVAPS vmovaps >> +# endif >> >> This is unecessarily complex. Please define MOVAPS unconditionaly, and ... > Please disregard the above... It is OK, since the code also handles sse.
Also, a little bit of the complexity is due to the header being intended for use other than for these stubs. So I only define SSE_SAVE and SSE_RESTORE if (in essence) one of MS2SYSV_STUB_AVX or MS2SYSV_STUB_SSE are defined prior to the #include. I try to balance thinking ahead and genericity with trying not to make things overly complex for an imaginary, would-be future user -- I may not always succeed at striking that balance though. :) > >> +# define BYTE .byte >> +# define SSE_SAVE \ >> + BYTE 0xc5, 0x78, 0x29, 0x78, 0xd0; /* vmovaps %xmm15,-0x30(%rax) */ \ >> >> Is there a reason for BYTE definition? Every known assembler supports >> .byte directive. > + BYTE 0xc5, 0xf8, 0x28, 0x76, 0x60; /* vmovaps 0x60(%rsi),%xmm6 */ > +# endif /* MOVAPS */ > #endif /* defined (MS2SYSV_STUB_ISA) && defined (MOVAPS) */ > #endif /* I386_ASM_H */ > > Please update the #endif comment. > > Uros. Thanks, more uglies that I won't have to correct later! Thanks, Daniel
