On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:20AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> It was recently pointed out that we get anomalous behavior when using
> __attribute__((target)) to select a CPU. As an example, when building for
> -mcpu=power8 but using __attribute__((target("mcpu=power10")), it is legal
> to call __builtin_vec_mod, but not vec_mod, even though these are
> equivalent. This is because the equivalence is established with a #define
> that is guarded by #ifdef _ARCH_PWR10.
Yeah that is bad.
> This goofy behavior occurs with both the old builtins support and the
> new. One of the goals of the new builtins support was to make sure all
> appropriate interfaces are available using __attribute__((target)), so I
> failed in this respect. This patch corrects the problem by removing the
> apply. For example, #ifdef __PPU__ is still appropriate.
"By removing the apply"... What does that mean?
Nice cleanup (and nice bugfix of course). Okay for trunk (with that
comment improved a bit perhaps). Thanks!
Segher
