On 2021/9/4 05:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:31:24AM +0800, Xionghu Luo wrote:
fmod/fmodf and remainder/remainderf could be expanded instead of library
call when fast-math build, which is much faster.
Thank you very much for this patch.
Some trivial comments if you haven't commmitted it yet:
+(define_expand "fmod<mode>3"
+ [(use (match_operand:SFDF 0 "gpc_reg_operand"))
+ (use (match_operand:SFDF 1 "gpc_reg_operand"))
+ (use (match_operand:SFDF 2 "gpc_reg_operand"))]
+ "TARGET_HARD_FLOAT
+ && TARGET_FPRND
+ && flag_unsafe_math_optimizations"
It should have one extra space before each && here:
OK.
"TARGET_HARD_FLOAT
&& TARGET_FPRND
&& flag_unsafe_math_optimizations"
(so that everything inside of the string aligns).
+(define_expand "remainder<mode>3"
(same here).
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl fmod\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl fmodf\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl remainder\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl remainderf\M} } } */
These are negative tests, so won't spuriously fail, but this does not
test for the function prefixes we can have. See
gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1.c for example.
Thanks. Verified that different calls are generated on different platforms
without this patch.
P8BE-64: bl __fmodf_finite
P8BE-32: b __fmodf_finite
P8LE-64: bl fmodf
"l", "__" and "_finite" are optional, so is it OK to check them with below
patterns?
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl? (__)?fmod(_finite)?\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl? (__)?fmodf(_finite)?\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl? (__)?remainder(_finite)?\M} } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mbl? (__)?remainderf(_finite)?\M} } } */
Again, thank you, and thanks to everyone else for the patch review
action :-)
Segher
--
Thanks,
Xionghu
