> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> Sent: 24 August 2021 09:02
> To: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR66791: Replace builtins for signed vmul_n intrinsics
> 
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:40, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 15:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:23, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > This patch replaces builtins with __a * __b for signed variants of
> > > > > > vmul_n intrinsics.
> > > > > > As discussed earlier, the patch has issue if __a * __b overflows, 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > whether we wish to leave
> > > > > > that as UB.
> > > > > ping
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=6785eb595981abd93ad85ed
> cfdf1d2e43c0841f5
> > > > Oops sorry, I meant this link:
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574428.html
> > > ping * 2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-
> July/574428.html
> > ping * 3 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574428.html
> ping * 4 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576321.html

I'm not very comfortable with this change. We'd be introducing direct signed 
multiplications that are undefined on overflow in C, but the vmul instructions 
in Neon have well-defined overflow semantics.
So they wouldn't be exactly equivalent.

Thanks,
Kyrill

> 
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh

Reply via email to