On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:48:08AM GMT, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> In gimple-lower-bitint.cc I'd strongly prefer to differentiate between
> changes required to get info->extended working correctly (that is what
> should be committed first, and right now should include the LSHIFT_EXPR in
> lower_shift_s
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:38:27PM +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> The current master branch does not seem to have _BitInt support for s390x,
> is the patch on this list?
>
> Also, I cannot find the relevant psABI definition or discussions at
> https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi
They were mailed to me p
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:21:40AM GMT, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> The existing testsuite never tests whether the padding bits are sign or zero
> extended or contain unknown values.
> In the s390x patch, info->extended is set to true, yet all bitint tests but
> bitint-64.c at -O3 pass.
>
> So, I'm
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:21:40AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:13:27AM +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:44:09PM GMT, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > I'd suggest working on it incrementally rather than with a full patch set.
> > > In one or multiple pat
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:13:27AM +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:44:09PM GMT, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd suggest working on it incrementally rather than with a full patch set.
> > In one or multiple patches handle the promote_mode stuff, the atomic
> > extension and expr.c
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:44:09PM GMT, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd suggest working on it incrementally rather than with a full patch set.
> In one or multiple patches handle the promote_mode stuff, the atomic
> extension and expr.cc changes with the feedback incorporated.
Ok.
> For gimple-lower-b
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:55:04PM GMT, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 15:44 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Specifically, the tests told me to extend (thought "truncate"
> > > was kind of an equivalent word) the output of left shift, plus/minus,
> >
> > Truncation is the exact opposit
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:44:09PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The tests weren't included :(.
I'd like to see something along the lines of following as the test(s)
for the padding bits (if LoongArch will really have the weirdo psABI
then with some special version of that for it).
Though, this do
On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 15:44 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Specifically, the tests told me to extend (thought "truncate"
> > was kind of an equivalent word) the output of left shift, plus/minus,
>
> Truncation is the exact opposite of extension.
> I can understand the need for handling of left sh
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:58:18PM +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> Thanks for the quick review.
>
> Aside from code formatting issues, can I conclude that you suggest
> we should rebase this onto your new big-endian support patch? Or
> do you think it's necessary to add big-endian && extended support
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the quick review.
Aside from code formatting issues, can I conclude that you suggest
we should rebase this onto your new big-endian support patch? Or
do you think it's necessary to add big-endian && extended support
together?
> Are you sure all those changes were really nec
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:29:09AM +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a proposition of a _BitInt(N) implementation for LoongArch,
> with the following psABI description:
>
> ```
> === Fundamental types of N-bit integers
>
> `_BitInt(N)` (as proposed in ISO/IEC WG14 N2763) is a family of
Hi,
This is a proposition of a _BitInt(N) implementation for LoongArch,
with the following psABI description:
```
=== Fundamental types of N-bit integers
`_BitInt(N)` (as proposed in ISO/IEC WG14 N2763) is a family of integer types
where `N` specifies the exact number of bits used for its repres
13 matches
Mail list logo
