Hi!
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:47:42AM -0500, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
> In summary, this patch removes two prototypes:
>
> vector int vec_ldl (int, long int *)
> vector unsigned int vec_ldl (int, unsigned long int *)
>
> and adds eight:
>
> vector bool char vec_ldl (int, bool char *)
> vector bool short vec_ldl (int, bool short *)
> vector bool int vec_ldl (int, bool int *)
> vector bool long long vec_ldl (int, bool long long *)
> vector pixel vec_ldl (int, pixel *)
Is "pixel" a type? "vector pixel" is, but plain "pixel"?
> vector long long vec_ldl (int, long long *)
> vector unsigned long long vec_ldl (int, unsigned long long *)
> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_overloaded_builtins): Remove
> erroneous entries for
> "vector int vec_ldl (int, long int *)", and
> "vector unsigned int vec_ldl (int, unsigned long int *)".
Whitespace is weird. I'll just assume this is how you pasted it into
the mail and it will be correct in the changelog you commit.
> @@ -32855,7 +32855,7 @@ rs6000_mangle_type (const_tree type)
> if (type == bool_short_type_node) return "U6__bools";
> if (type == pixel_type_node) return "u7__pixel";
> if (type == bool_int_type_node) return "U6__booli";
> - if (type == bool_long_type_node) return "U6__booll";
> + if (type == bool_long_long_type_node) return "U6__booll";
The mangled name now still says it is "bool long", not "bool long long".
Can you do this? At the very least it needs a comment.
> --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (revision 258800)
> +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (working copy)
> @@ -1656,29 +1656,50 @@ const struct altivec_builtin_types altivec_overloa
> RS6000_BTI_V16QI, RS6000_BTI_INTSI, ~RS6000_BTI_INTQI, 0 },
> { ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_LVEBX, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_LVEBX,
> RS6000_BTI_unsigned_V16QI, RS6000_BTI_INTSI, ~RS6000_BTI_UINTQI, 0
> },
> +
> + /* vector float vec_ldl (int, vector float *);
> + * vector float vec_ldl (int, float *); */
No leading * on comment continuation lines.
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-ldl-1.c (nonexistent)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec-ldl-1.c (revision 258889)
> @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
> +/* { dg-do run { target powerpc*-*-* } } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target vmx_hw } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
> +/* { dg-options "-maltivec -O0 -Wall" } */
Does this need lp64? Same question for the other tests.
Segher
