Re: Should invalid __RTL testcase "startwith" passes emit a warning?

2019-02-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:29 PM Matthew Malcomson wrote: > > Hi there, > > I'd like to make handling of the __RTL function testcases where the > startwith pass name is either invalid, not used for that optimisation > level, or non-existant more understandable. > > Currently a problem with the pass

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Peter Bergner
On 2/19/19 9:09 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 01:13:31PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> long input; >> long >> bug (void) >> { >> register long output asm ("r3"); >> asm ("blah %0, %1, %2" : "=&r" (output) : "r" (input), "0" (input)); >> return output; >> } >> >> I know an i

Re: Idea: extend gcc to save C from the hell of intel vector instructions

2019-02-20 Thread Warren D Smith
On 2/18/19, Andrew Pinski wrote: > GCC already has most of this support. See > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html#Vector-Extensions > > The dot in the typenames are not going to supported though. > > Thanks, > Andrew --what #include files and/or compiler flags ar

Re: Idea: extend gcc to save C from the hell of intel vector instructions

2019-02-20 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Warren D Smith wrote: > but if I try to replace that with the nicer (since more portable) >c = __builtin_shuffle(a, b); > then > error: use of unknown builtin '__builtin_shuffle' > [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] Most likely you're on OS X and the 'gcc' command actually

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:08:07AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/19/19 9:09 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 01:13:31PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > >> long input; > >> long > >> bug (void) > >> { > >> register long output asm ("r3"); > >> asm ("blah %0, %1, %2" : "=&r" (

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:08:07AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/19/19 9:09 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 01:13:31PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > >> long input; > >> long > >> bug (void) > >> { > >> register long output asm ("r3"); > >> asm ("blah %0, %1, %2" : "=&r" (

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Alan Modra
I forgot to say, gcc-6, gcc-7 and gcc-8 handle your original testcase with the register asm just fine. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Peter Bergner
On 2/20/19 4:19 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > I forgot to say, gcc-6, gcc-7 and gcc-8 handle your original testcase > with the register asm just fine. Yes, because they don't have my IRA and LRA patches that exposed this problem. I would say they were buggy for not complaining and silently spilling a ha

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Peter Bergner
On 2/20/19 4:04 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:08:07AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> On 2/19/19 9:09 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> That said, talking with Segher and Uli offline, they both think the >> inline asm usage in the test case should be legal > > Good, it seems we are in a

Re: Question regarding constraint usage within inline asm

2019-02-20 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 08:57:52PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/20/19 4:19 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > > I forgot to say, gcc-6, gcc-7 and gcc-8 handle your original testcase > > with the register asm just fine. > > Yes, because they don't have my IRA and LRA patches that exposed this > problem.