Hi,
Here is the AVX patch for x86-64 psABI proposed at gcc submmit 2008.
H.J.
---
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:49:12AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > > I guess we all agree on passing variadic arguments on stack (that is
>> > >
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:49:12AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > I guess we all agree on passing variadic arguments on stack (that is
> > > only those belonging on ...) and rest in registers. It seems easiest in
> > > regard to future register set extensions too. Only negative thing is
> > > that
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:49:12AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I guess we all agree on passing variadic arguments on stack (that is
> > only those belonging on ...) and rest in registers. It seems easiest in
> > regard to future register set extensions too. Only negative thing is
> > that calls to
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:48:57PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >> 1) make __m256 passed on stack on variadic functions and in registers
> > >> otherws
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> 1) make __m256 passed on stack on variadic functions and in registers
>> >>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> 1) make __m256 passed on stack on variadic functions and in registers
> >> otherwse. Then we don't need to worry about varargs changes at all.
> >> Th
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> 1) make __m256 passed on stack on variadic functions and in registers
>> otherwse. Then we don't need to worry about varargs changes at all.
>> This will br
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 1) make __m256 passed on stack on variadic functions and in registers
> otherwse. Then we don't need to worry about varargs changes at all.
> This will break unprototyped calls.
> 2) extend rax to pass info about if __m256 registers
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't understand why you want to pass __m256 and 256-bit vector values
> >> to anonymous arguments in registers. The only thing the vararg functions
> >> would do with it would be save it somewhere on the stack.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand why you want to pass __m256 and 256-bit vector values
>> to anonymous arguments in registers. The only thing the vararg functions
>> would do with it would be save it somewhere on the stack.
>> Given t
>
> I don't understand why you want to pass __m256 and 256-bit vector values
> to anonymous arguments in registers. The only thing the vararg functions
> would do with it would be save it somewhere on the stack.
> Given the x86_64 ABI, you can't expect calling an implicitly
> prototyped or non-va
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 04:40:54PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Still it seems to me that we can use extend current eax convention.
> Currently the value must be in range 0...8 as it specify number of SSE
> registers. We can pack both numbers into it. This way we get
> unforutnately wild jump on c
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> > > > of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> > > > YMM registers.
> >
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:31:12AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 1. Extend the register save area to put upper 128bit at the end.
> Pros:
> Aligned access.
> Save stack space if 256bit registers are used.
> Cons
> Split access. Require more split access beyond 256bit.
>
> 2. Extend the r
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:40 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > ymm0 and xmm0
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
>> > > of xmm0. I am not sure if
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> > > of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> > > YMM registers.
> >
> >
> > Y
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> > of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> > YMM registers.
>
>
> Yes, I know that xmm0 is lower part of ymm0. I still think we ought to
>
>
> ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> YMM registers.
Yes, I know that xmm0 is lower part of ymm0. I still think we ought to
be able to support varargs that do save ymm0 registers only when ymm
values a
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Extend the register save area to put upper 128bit at the end.
>> Pros:
>> Aligned access.
>> Save stack space if 256bit registers are used.
>> Cons
>> Split access. Require more split access beyond 256bi
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:31 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> x86-64 psABI defines
>>
>> typedef struct
>> {
>> unsigned int gp_offset;
>> unsigned int fp_offset;
>> void *overflow_arg_area;
>> void
>
> 1. Extend the register save area to put upper 128bit at the end.
> Pros:
> Aligned access.
> Save stack space if 256bit registers are used.
> Cons
> Split access. Require more split access beyond 256bit.
>
> 2. Extend the register save area to put full 265bit YMMs at the end.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:31 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> x86-64 psABI defines
>
> typedef struct
> {
> unsigned int gp_offset;
> unsigned int fp_offset;
> void *overflow_arg_area;
> void *reg_save_area;
> } va_list[1];
>
> for variable argument list. "va_list" is used to acc
Hi,
x86-64 psABI defines
typedef struct
{
unsigned int gp_offset;
unsigned int fp_offset;
void *overflow_arg_area;
void *reg_save_area;
} va_list[1];
for variable argument list. "va_list" is used to access variable argument
list:
void
bar (const char *format, va_list ap)
{
if (va_arg
25 matches
Mail list logo
