> Am 09.09.2024 um 19:09 schrieb Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de>:
>
> Am 09.09.24 um 09:19 schrieb Richard Biener:
>> Is the library implementation in any way different from the signed
>> one? Iff only
>> multiplication and addition/subtraction are involved the unsigned
>> implementation
>> could implement both variants (the signed one would eventually cause
>> undefinedness
>> with respect to overflow unless built with -fwrapv). That would save code
>> size
>> in libgfortran and eventually icache if mixing uses of both.
>
> The versions for signed and unsigned matmul are generated from the
> same source, so that should work.
>
> But it will require some ugly m4 hackery... I'll take a look if
> I can make it work.
I meant you shouldn’t need new library entry points for unsigned but simply
call the signed ones (and switch the signed implementation to use unsigned
arithmetic due to the overflow issue).
Richard
> Best regards
>
> Thomas