The following 3 patches improve __ibm128 on the PowerPC GCC compiler:
The first patch allows the use of the __ibm128 keyword on non-VSX systems.
Originally, the __ibm128 keyword was only enabled when the IEEE 128-bit
floating point is enabled. Sometime back in the GCC 12 development period,
Segher asked that the __ibm128 keyword be allowed in older systems that don't
support IEEE 128-bit. This patch allows __ibm128 to be used if either IEEE
128-bit is enabled or long double used the IBM 128-bit format.
The second patch fixes PR target/105334. This PR complains that the __ibm128
keyword is not defined on a system that uses IEEE 128-bit long double, but the
user used the -msoft-float option. This patch removes the checks for hardware
floating point support in IBM 128-bit long double support, and also enables the
__ibm128 keyword. The existing test gcc.target/powerpc/pr105334.c will now
pass on a system using IEEE 128-bit long double.
The third patch uses the 'w' suffix for __ibm128 constants. It turns out we
had documented using the 'w' suffix for __ibm128, but we had never implemented
it.
I have tested these patches on the following systems:
1) LE Power10 using --with-cpu=power10 --with-long-double-format=ieee
2) LE Power10 using --with-cpu=power9 --with-long-double-format=ibm
3) LE Power10 using --with-cpu=power8 --with-long-double-format=ibm
4) LE Power10 using --with-cpu=power10 --with-long-double-format=ibm
5) LE Power9 using --with-cpu=power9 --with-long-double-format=ibm
6) BE Power8 using --with-cpu=power8 --with-long-double-format=ibm
7) BE Power8 using --with-cpu=power5 --with-long-double-format=ibm
There were no regressions in the build or in the tests. On the power10 with
long double using the IEEE 128-bit format, pr105334.c now runs where it
previously failed.
Can I check these patches into the trunk?
Did we want to back port these changes to older GCC's?
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
PO Box 98, Ayer, Massachusetts, USA, 01432
email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com
