Re: ping^^: [PATCH] rs6000: Enable const_anchor for 'addi'

2023-05-31 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:00 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > > Gentle ping... > > Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes: > > > Gentle ping... > > > > Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm thinking that we may enable this patch for stage1, so ping it. > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/

Re: [PATCH 1/4] rs6000: build constant via li;rotldi

2023-06-02 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Jiufu * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (can_be_rotated_to_possitive_li): New function. (can_be_rotated_to_negative_li): New function. (can_be_built_by_li_and_rotldi): New function. (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Call can_be_built_by_li_and_rotldi. In English the word

Re: [PATCH 1/4] rs6000: build constant via li;rotldi

2023-06-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:55 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > This patch checks if a constant is possible to be rotated to/from a > positive > or negative value from "li". If so, we could use "li;rotldi" to build it. > > Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. > Is this ok for trunk? > > BR, > Jeff

Re: [PATCH 2/4] rs6000: build constant via lis;rotldi

2023-06-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:55 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > This patch checks if a constant is possible to be rotated to/from a > negative > value from "lis". If so, we could use "lis;rotldi" to build it. > The positive value of "lis" does not need to be analyzed. Because if a > constant can be r

Re: [PATCH 3/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldicl/rldicr

2023-06-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > This patch checks if a constant is possible left/right cleaned on a rotated > value from a negative value of "li/lis". If so, we can build the constant > through "li/lis ; rldicl/rldicr". > > Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. > Is

Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic

2023-06-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic". > We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to > check. > For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional > shift. > >

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Don't use TFmode for 128 bits fp constant in toc [PR110011]

2023-06-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 5:20 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > Hi, > > As PR110011 shows, when encoding 128 bits fp constant into > toc, we adopts REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE which is > to find the first float mode with LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE > bits of precision, it would be TFmode here. But the 128 > bi

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Guard __builtin_{un, }pack_vector_int128 with vsx [PR109932]

2023-06-11 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 5:19 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > Hi, > > As PR109932 shows, builtins __builtin_{un,}pack_vector_int128 > should be guarded under vsx rather than power7, as their > corresponding bif patterns have the conditions TARGET_VSX > and VECTOR_MEM_ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_P (V1TImode). This patch

[PATCH, AIX] Debugging does not require a stack frame.

2023-06-11 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
The rs6000 port has allocated a stack frame when debugging is enabled on AIX since the earliest versions of the port. Apparently the earliest versions of the debuggers for AIX had difficulty with stackless frames. Both AIX DBX and GDB support stackless frames on AIX, and IBM XLC, OpenXL and LLVM

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: replace '(const_int 0)' to 'unspec:BLK [(const_int 0)]' for stack_tie

2023-06-12 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Jiufu This definitely seems to be a better solution. The TARGET_CONST_ANCHOR change should not be part of this patch. Also there is no ChangeLog for the patch. This generally looks correct and consistent with other ports. I want to give Segher a chance to double check it, if he wishes. Tha

Re: [PATCH 1/4] rs6000: build constant via li;rotldi

2023-06-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:30 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > > > Hi David, > > David Edelsohn writes: > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:55 PM Jiufu Guo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This patch checks if a constant is possible to be rotated to/from a > > positive > > or negative value from "li". If so, we cou

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: replace '(const_int 0)' to 'unspec:BLK [(const_int 0)]' for stack_tie

2023-06-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 2:16 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:15:49AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > > David Edelsohn writes: > > > > > > This definitely seems to be a better solution. > > > > > > The TARGET_CONST_ANCHOR change should not be part of this patch. Also

Re: [PATCH] match.pd: Implement missed optimization (~X | Y) ^ X -> ~(X & Y) [PR109986]

2023-07-25 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Drew Thanks for addressing this missed optimization. The testcase includes an incorrect assumption: signed char, which causes the testcase to fail on PowerPC. Should the testcase be updated to specify signed char in the function signatures or should -fsigned-char be added to the command line

[RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-07 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
FOSS Best Practices recommends that projects have an official Security policy stated in a SECURITY.md or SECURITY.txt file at the root of the repository. GLIBC and Binutils have added such documents. Appended is a prototype for a Security policy file for GCC based on the Binutils document because

Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-08 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 10:07 AM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-08-08 10:04, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:35 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 6:02 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 02:52:57PM +02

Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-08 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:36 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 7:37 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > BTW, I think we should perhaps differentiate between production ready > > libraries (e.g. libgcc, libstdc++, libgomp, libatomic, libgfortran, > libquadmath, > > libssp) vs. e.g. t

Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-09 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 1:33 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-08-08 10:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > >> Do you have a suggestion for the language to address libgcc, > >> libstdc++, etc. and libiberty, libbacktrace, etc.? > > > > I'll work on this a bit and share a draft. > > Hi David, > >

Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-11 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 1:33 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-08-08 10:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > >> Do you have a suggestion for the language to address libgcc, > >> libstdc++, etc. and libiberty, libbacktrace, etc.? > > > > I'll work on this a bit and share a draft. > > Hi David, > >

Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy

2023-08-15 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 7:07 PM Alexander Monakov wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > > Thanks, this is nicer (see notes below). My main concern is that we > > > shouldn't pretend there's some method of verifying that arbitrary > source > > > code is "safe" to pass to

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] libstdc++: Implement more maintainable header

2023-08-16 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Arsen This patch broke bootstrap because it has introduced a new GCC build requirement for autogen that is not a previous requirement to build GCC. Previously the repository has included post-processed files. +# AutoGen . +.PHONY: update-version +update-version: + cd ${bits_srcdir} && \

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] libstdc++: Implement more maintainable header

2023-08-16 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Was the dependency added to the dependencies in contrib/gcc_update? Otherwise the timestamp can get out of sync in a Git checkout. Thanks, David On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 6:20 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 22:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 22:39,

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test

2023-05-21 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Andrew Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. Unfortunately this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit siz

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test

2023-05-21 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:25 AM Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > Hi, Andrew > > > > Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. > Unfortunately > > this specific pat

Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: Update testcases' instruction count

2021-01-22 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
All of these testcases no fail on AIX. This was not tested properly. Please fix. Thanks, David On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:19 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote: > > 2020-10-10 Xionghu Luo > > > > * gcc.target/powerpc/fold

Re: [PATCH 3/4] rs6000: Enable vec_insert for P8 with rs6000_expand_vector_set_var_p8

2021-01-22 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:51 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > You never committed 2/4? That makes it harder to review this one :-) > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 03:08:24AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > 2020-10-10 Xionghu Luo > > > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c

Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: Update testcases' instruction count

2021-01-22 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Those are the fold-vec-extract-* changes. And they fix a regression on AIX. Another difference to detangle. I'm referring to the new fold-vec-insert-* failures. I fixed the p9 failures, but some of the tests now ICE when targeting P8. Thanks, David On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:03 PM Segher Boess

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix vec insert ilp32 ICE and test failures [PR98799]

2021-01-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:11 PM will schmidt wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 01:46 -0600, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote: > > From: "luo...@cn.ibm.com" > > > > (rs6000_expand_vector_set_var): Delete. > > The diff conflates the deleted function with the changes to an existing > function,

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix vec insert ilp32 ICE and test failures [PR98799]

2021-01-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:46 AM Xionghu Luo wrote: > > From: "luo...@cn.ibm.com" > > UNSPEC_SI_FROM_SF is not supported when TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE_64BIT > is false for -m32, don't generate VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(ARRAY_REF) for > variable vector insert. Remove rs6000_expand_vector_set_var helper > functi

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix vec insert ilp32 ICE and test failures [PR98799]

2021-01-27 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:56 PM Xionghu Luo wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2021/1/27 03:00, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:46 AM Xionghu Luo wrote: > >> > >> From: "luo...@cn.ibm.com" > >> > >> UNSPEC_SI_FROM_SF is not supported when TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE_64BIT > >> is false for -m32,

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix vec insert ilp32 ICE and test failures [PR98799]

2021-01-27 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch is okay with the removal of { target powerpc*-*-* } from the pr79251-run.c testcase directives. As I explained in the earlier email, I still believe that the testcase is not testing what you intend, but this patch is a definite improvement and removes the failures. We can correct the

[PATCH] Permit use of AIX Vector extended ABI mode

2021-01-30 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
AIX only permits use of Altivec VSRs 20-31 in a Vector Extended ABI mode. This patch explicitly enables use of the VSRs using the new -mabi=vec-extabi command line option also implemented in LLVM for AIX. Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.3.0 and powerpc64le-linux-gnu. gcc/Ch

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] do not generate fusion.md, update contrib/gcc_update

2021-02-01 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Okay. Thanks, David On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:17 PM wrote: > > From: Aaron Sawdey > > In a previous fusion-combine patch for rs6000, Segher had asked me to > comment out the automatic regeneration of fusion.md. And more recently > Edelsohn pointed out that gcc_update needed to fix the timestamp

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr25376.c on powerpc64-linux and array-quals-1.c on powerpc-linux [PR98325]

2021-02-04 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:26 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:26:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:14:52PM -0500, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > Jenkins does function on AIX. I w

Re: rs6000: Fix ICE in rs6000_init_builtins when compiling with -mcpu=440 [PR99279]

2021-02-25 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:05 PM Peter Bergner wrote: > > The initialization of compat builtins assumes the builtin we are creating > a compatible builtin for exists and ICEs if it doesn't. However, there are > valid reasons why some builtins are disabled for a particular compile. > In this case,

Re: add -mpowerpc-gpopt to options for sqrt insn on PowerPC

2021-02-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:09 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > This patch avoids an ICE in gimplefe-28.c, in our ppc64-vxworks7r2 > tests. Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, and on the affected platform. Ok to > install? I'm sort of surprised that sqrt instruction would be available for the target but no

Re: add powerpc_vsx_ok requirement to undef-bool tests

2021-02-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:14 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > These tests use -mvsx in their dg-options list, so they are only > applicable if the -mvsx option is supported by the compiler. > > Tested with target ppc64-vx7r2, configured to force altivec disabled, > and thus to reject vsx. Ok to ins

Re: add -mpowerpc-gpopt to options for sqrt insn on PowerPC

2021-03-02 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Alex, dejagnu should not report that sqrt_insn is available on PowerPC in confirmations when it is not. The correct fix and the one suggested by Richard and Segher is to test for the availability of sqrt, not to assume that it exists in PowerPC. The test should not explicitly add -mpowerpc-gpopt

Re: add -mpowerpc-gpopt to options for sqrt insn on PowerPC

2021-03-02 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:48 AM Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Alexandre Oliva writes: > > On Feb 26, 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:31:16PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:09 AM Alexandre Oliva > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > This p

[PATCH] Fix TLS thread pointer function names on AIX

2021-03-02 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch adds missing periods to the symbol name for TLS helper functions. Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.2.0. Thanks, David * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (tls_get_tpointer_internal): Prepend period to symbol name. (tls_get_addr_internal): Same. diff --

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix ICE expanding lxvp and stxvp gimple built-ins [PR101849]

2021-08-12 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:37 PM Peter Bergner wrote: > > PR101849 shows we ICE on a test case when we pass a non __vector_pair * > pointer to the __builtin_vsx_lxvp and __builtin_vsx_stxvp built-ins > that is cast to __vector_pair *. The problem is that when we expand > the built-in, the cast has

Re: [PATCH] Fix xxeval predicates (PR 99921).

2021-08-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:14 AM Michael Meissner wrote: > > Fix xxeval predicates (PR 99921). > > I originally posted this patch in May and in June. I'm reposting it now. > > I noticed that the xxeval built-in function used the altivec_register_operand > predicate. Since it takes vsx registers,

Re: [PATCH] Fix xxeval predicates (PR 99921).

2021-08-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:49 AM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:14:14AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I noticed that the xxeval built-in function used the > > altivec_register_operand > > predicate. Since it takes vsx registers, this might force the register > > al

Re: [PATCH] Fix xxeval predicates (PR 99921).

2021-08-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:49 AM Segher Boessenkool > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:14:14AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > > I noticed that th

Re: [PATCH] Fix xxeval predicates (PR 99921).

2021-08-13 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:24 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:07:25PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08 PM Segher Boessenkool > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021

Re: Expensive selftests (was: 'hash_map>')

2021-08-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This causes a bootstrap failure for me. PR/101959 On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:00 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:40 AM Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] Move xx* builtins to vsx.md.

2021-08-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:20 AM Michael Meissner wrote: > > Move xx* builtins to vsx.md. > > I originally posted this patch in May. It needed a slight tune up as the > souces have changed, so I'm reposting it now. > > I noticed that the xx built-in functions (xxspltiw, xxspltidp, xxsplti32dx, >

Re: [PATCH] more warning code refactoring

2021-08-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Hi, Martin A few PowerPC-specific testcases started failing yesterday on AIX with a strange failure mode: the compiler runs out of memory. As you may expect from telling you this in an email reply to your patch, I have bisected the failure and landed on your commit. I can alternate between the p

Re: [PATCH] more warning code refactoring

2021-08-19 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
s more adjustment in the Makefile. Thanks, David On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 1:57 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > > Hi David, > > on 2021/8/19 上午11:26, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, Martin > > > > A few PowerPC-specific testcases started failing yesterday on AIX

[PATCH] AIX SYSTEM_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C

2021-08-24 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
AIX 7.3 system headers are C++ safe and GCC no longer needs to define SYSTEM_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C for AIX 7.3. This patch moves the definition from aix.h to the individual OS-level configuration files and does not define the macro for AIX 7.3. The patch also corrects the definiti

[PATCH] Inline IBM long double __gcc_qsub

2021-08-25 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
rs6000: inline ldouble __gcc_qsub While performing some tests of IEEE 128 float for PPC64LE, Michael Meissner noticed that __gcc_qsub is substantially slower than __gcc_qadd. __gcc_qsub valls __gcc_add with the second operand negated. Because the functions normally are invoke

[PATCH v2] Inline IBM long double __gcc_qsub

2021-08-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
While performing some tests of IEEE 128 float for PPC64LE, Michael Meissner noticed that __gcc_qsub is substantially slower than __gcc_qadd. __gcc_qsub calls __gcc_add with the second operand negated. Because the functions normally are invoked through libgcc shared object, the

Re: [PATCH v2] Inline IBM long double __gcc_qsub

2021-08-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 6:53 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:57:35PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > > * config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (ldouble_qadd_internal): Rename > > from > > __gcc_qadd. > > (__gcc_qadd): Call ldouble_qadd_

[PATCH] AIX packed structure alignment [PR102068]

2021-08-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
Further fixes to structure alignment when the structure is packed and contains double. This patch checks for packed attribute at the top level. Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.3.0 gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/102068 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_adjust_

Re: [PATCH] Fix float128-call.c test for power8 IEEE 128 and power10.

2021-08-27 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch is okay. Thanks, David On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:41 PM Bill Schmidt wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for this clean-up! > > On 8/25/21 5:09 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > > From 327273dfeec5c000f3c33ca7b88ee0097fd33586 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Michael Meissner > > Date: Wed,

[PATCH] AIX: collect2 visibility

2020-09-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
The code that collect2 generates, compiles and links into applications and shared libraries to initialize constructors and register DWARF tables is built with the compiler options used to invoke the linker. If the compiler options change the visibility from default, the library initialization rout

Re: [PATCH] Fix build of ppc64 target.

2020-10-01 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c: Include value-range.h. > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Likewise. > > This is okay for trunk, thanks! (It is trivial and obvious as well, so > please just commit things like this without prior approval.) This patch is not the correct long-term solution, as I explai

Re: [PATCH] Fix build of ppc64 target.

2020-10-01 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:02 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > On 10/1/20 5:30 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c: Include value-range.h. > >>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c: Likewise. > >> This is okay for trunk, thanks! (It is trivial and obvious as well, so > >> please just com

Re: [PATCH] aix: remove libgomp and libatomic archives before creating FAT archives

2020-10-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This solution doesn't really appeal to me, but there aren't any good options. AIX caches shared objects in memory for faster startup. If the archive file permissions do not include read-other (world readable), the shared object is not cached. But using this option might cause permission problem

Re: [PATCH] aix: remove libgomp and libatomic archives before creating FAT archives

2020-10-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
It also is confusing for the patch to perform $(ARX) -X32_64 when immediately before the fragment created ARX by explicitly stripping -X32_64. If it's going to perform ar -X32_64 it should use the normal $(AR) variable. Thanks, David On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:06 AM CHIGOT, CLEMENT wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] Avoid depending on destructor order

2022-09-23 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 9:38 AM Thomas Neumann wrote: > > This patch broke bootstrap on AIX and probably other targets. > > > > #ifdef ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH > > #include "unwind-dw2-btree.h" > > > > static struct btree registered_frames; > > static bool in_shutdown; > > ... > > #else > > > > in_sh

Re: [PATCH] Avoid depending on destructor order

2022-09-23 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 9:38 AM Thomas Neumann wrote: > > This patch broke bootstrap on AIX and probably other targets. > > > > #ifdef ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH > > #include "unwind-dw2-btree.h" > > > > static struct btree registered_frames; > > static bool in_shutdown; > > ... > > #else > > > > in_sh

Re: [PATCH] Avoid depending on destructor order

2022-09-23 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:12 AM Thomas Neumann wrote: > > > > +static const bool in_shutdown = false; > > > > I'll let Jason or others decide if this is the right solution. It seems > > that in_shutdown also could be declared outside the #ifdef and > > initialized as "false". > > sure, eith

Re: [PATCH] Set discriminators for call stmts on the same line within the same basic block

2022-10-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch causes a bootstrap comparison failure on AIX. It apparently does not cause a failure on PPC64BE Linux with the same ABI, so I suspect that the failure may be related to the way that function aliases are implemented on AIX, which doesn't have ELF symbol alias semantics. "This change wil

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Allow emergency EH alloc pool size to be tuned [PR68606]

2022-10-11 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch seems to have broken bootstrap on AIX. It seems to assume methods that aren't guaranteed to be defined. Thanks, David libtool: compile: /tmp/GCC/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/GCC/./gcc/ -B/nasfarm/edelsohn/ins tall/GCC/powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.5.0/bin/ -B/nasfarm/edelsohn/install/GCC/powerpc-ibm -aix7

Re: [PATCH v3, rs6000] Enable absolute jump table for PPC AIX and Linux

2022-03-01 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:41 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, >This patch enables absolute jump tables on PPC AIX and Linux. For AIX, the > jump > table is placed in data section. For Linux, it is placed in RELRO section when > relocation is needed. > >Bootstrapped and tested on AIX,Linux B

Re: [PATCH] libgcc: allow building float128 libraries on FreeBSD

2022-03-03 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
I don't have any objection, but the patch is FreeBSD-specific. You are sending the patch from the FreeBSD organization, but I don't know the authority structure within the organization. Andreas Tobler is the FreeBSD maintainer for GCC, but I don't know his current status. Thanks, David On Sun,

Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword

2022-03-21 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo wrote: > > Hi! > > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" > and near the end of the file. > > Like the case in PR101168: > using vdbl = __vector double; > #define BREAK 1 > > For this case, "__vector double" is not followed

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Skip overload instances with NULL fntype [PR104967]

2022-03-23 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:33 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > > Hi, > > As shown in PR104967, for some overload built-in function instance, > if it requires a date type which isn't defined on the target, its > fntype would be initialized as NULL. This patch is to consider > this possibility in function find

Re: [PATCH] ppc: testsuite: require target effectively [PR104253]

2022-04-11 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:53 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > The testcase was missing dg- before require-effective-target. > > While at that, I'm also pruning the excess-error warning I got when > the test failed to be disabled because of the above. I suppose it > might be useful for some target

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Implement C++20 atomic and atomic

2022-01-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch introduced new AIX testsuite failures. PR libstdc++/104101 Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add a combine pattern for CA minus one [PR95737]

2022-01-19 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 2:12 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, >This patch adds a combine pattern for "CA minus one". As CA only has two > values (0 or 1), we could convert following pattern > (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (reg:SI 98 ca) > (const_int -1 [0x] >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add a combine pattern for CA minus one [PR95737]

2022-01-19 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 2:12 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, >This patch adds a combine pattern for "CA minus one". As CA only has two > values (0 or 1), we could convert following pattern > (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (reg:SI 98 ca) > (const_int -1 [0x] >

Re: [PATCH v2, rs6000] Add a combine pattern for CA minus one [PR95737]

2022-01-20 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:36 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, >This patch adds a combine pattern for "CA minus one". As CA only has two > values (0 or 1), we could convert following pattern > (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (reg:SI 98 ca) > (const_int -1 [0x] >

Re: Ping: [PATCH] PR 103763, Fix fold-vec-splat-floatdouble on power10.

2022-01-21 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 2:56 PM Michael Meissner wrote: > > Ping patch > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/587924.html > > | Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:05:53 -0500 > | From: Michael Meissner > | Subject: [PATCH] PR 103763, Fix fold-vec-splat-floatdouble on power10. > | Message-

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fsplit-stack support on non-glibc targets

2022-01-25 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This patch broke bootstrap on AIX. It may have broken Darwin. I have applied the following patch. AIX doesn't need to distinguish between different Linux libc implementations. Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.3.0 Thanks, David aix: AIX is not GLIBC. A recent patch added tests for O

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix up #include or [PR104239]

2022-01-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > r12-4717-g7d37abedf58d66 added immintrin.h and x86gprintrin.h headers > to rs6000, these headers are on x86 standalone headers that various > programs include directly rather than including them through > . > Unfortunately, for that

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable pointer_query caching throughout.

2022-02-03 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer bootstrap GCC on AIX. As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September, something is not freeing memory. Even on systems where GCC still bootstrap, this excessive memory usage severely damages GCC compile perfor

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable pointer_query caching throughout.

2022-02-03 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:09 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 2/3/22 15:56, David Edelsohn wrote: > > This series of patches has exploded memory usage and I can no longer > > bootstrap GCC on AIX. > > > > As with the Ranger problem exposed by Aldy's patch last September, > > something is not freeing m

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix up -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE* with -mabi=ieeelongdouble [PR104380]

2022-02-04 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:58 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > The following testcase FAILs when configured with > --with-long-double-format=ieee . Only happens in the -std=c* modes, not the > GNU modes; while the glibc headers have __asm redirects of > vsnprintf and __vsnprinf_chk to __vsnprin

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/lib/chk.c for powerpc [PR104380]

2022-02-07 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 8:20 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 12:00:57PM -0500, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > The following testcase FAILs when configured with > > > --with-long-double-format=ieee . Only happens in the -std=c* mode

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix up vspltis_shifted [PR102140]

2022-02-08 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:25 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > The following testcase ICEs, because > (const_vector:V4SI [ > (const_int 0 [0]) repeated x3 > (const_int -2147483648 [0x8000]) > ]) > is recognized as valid easy_vector_constant

Re: [PATCH, 11 backport] rs6000: Fix LE code gen for vec_cnt[lt]z_lsbb [PR95082]

2022-02-10 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:17 PM Bill Schmidt wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2/10/22 2:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:22:28PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> This is a backport from mainline 3f30f2d1dbb3228b8468b26239fe60c2974ce2ac. > >> These built-ins were misimplemented a

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Better error messages for power8/9-vector builtins

2021-11-17 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:02 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be > > uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless. > > Maybe the warning could say "requires -mcpu=power8 (and -mvsx)"? Is > that clearer, to

[PATCH] Detect Power10 CPU on AIX

2021-11-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
For -mcpu=native, GCC needs to detect the processor. This patch adds the processor value for Power10. Suggested by Kevin Alder. * config/rs6000/driver-rs6000.c (detect_processor_aix): Add power10. Bootstrapped on powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.3.0 diff -

[PATCH] Fix rs6000 predicates.md use of decl_replaceable_p

2021-11-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md @@ -1086,7 +1086,9 @@ (define_predicate "current_file_function_operand" (match_test "(DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_AIX || SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op)) && (SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op) ||

Re: [PATCH] Fix rs6000 predicates.md use of decl_replaceable_p

2021-11-18 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:07 PM Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md > > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md > > @@ -1086,7 +1086,9 @@ (define_predicate "current_file_function_operand" > > (match_test "(DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_AIX || SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op)) > >

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] optimization for vec_reve builtin [PR100868]

2021-11-21 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:28 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, > > The patch optimized for vec_reve builtin on rs6000. For V2DI and V2DF, it > is implemented by xxswapd on all targets. For V16QI, V8HI, V4SI and V4SF, it > is implemented by quadword byte reverse plus halfword/word byte reverse whe

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add zero cycle move support

2021-11-22 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:58 AM Bill Schmidt wrote: > > Hi! > > On 11/19/21 8:49 AM, Michael Meissner wrote: > > The next set of 3 patches add zero cycle move support to the Power10. Zero > > cycle moves are where the move to LR/CTR/TAR register that is adjacent to > > the > > jump to LR/CTR/TA

Re: aix: adjust installation directories for GCC64

2021-11-24 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:12 AM CHIGOT, CLEMENT wrote: > > As gcc on 64bit for AIX is built with "MULTILIB_MATCHES= .=maix32", > "-print-multi-directory" and similar flags aren't returning the > correct directory when used with -maix32: "." is returned instead > of "ppc32". > Libgcc installation s

Re: [PATCH] Modify combine pattern by anding a pseudo with its nonzero bits

2021-11-30 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:46 AM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, > > This patch modifies the combine pattern with a helper - > change_pseudo_and_mask when recog fails. The helper converts a single pseudo > to the pseudo and with a mask if the outer operator is IOR/XOR/PLUS and the > inner operat

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Change insn condition from TARGET_64BIT to TARGET_POWERPC64 for VSX scalar extract/insert instructions

2022-08-25 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 1:22 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > > on 2022/8/25 11:37, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 24/8/2022 下午 1:24, Kewen.Lin wrote: > >> Could you try to test with dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -mpowerpc64" > >> all the time, but still > >> having that has_arch_ppc64 effective

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Change insn condition from TARGET_64BIT to TARGET_POWERPC64 for VSX scalar extract/insert instructions

2022-08-26 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:42 PM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi David, > > On 25/8/2022 下午 10:01, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 1:22 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > >> > >> on 2022/8/25 11:37, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 24/8/2022 下午 1:24, Kewen.Lin wrote: > Could you

Re: [PATCH 1/3] STABS: remove -gstabs and -gxcoff functionality

2022-09-06 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
I fully support the plan to remove stabs support, but this patch broke bootstrap on AIX. It seems rather bad policy to remove support for a feature without ensuring that the removal does not negatively impact the targets touched by the patch. I should have been explicitly copied on these patches

Re: [PATCH 1/3] STABS: remove -gstabs and -gxcoff functionality

2022-09-06 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
* dwarf2out.cc (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO): Likewise. (HAVE_XCOFF_DWARF_EXTRAS): Likewise. (output_fde): Likewise. (output_call_frame_info): Likewise. (have_macinfo): Likewise. (add_AT_loc_list): Likewise. (add_AT_view_list): Likewise. (out

Re: [PATCH] Restore XCOFF for DWARF on AIX.

2022-09-07 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 7:45 AM Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > The patch restores DWARF support for AIX target where XCOFF file container > is used. > Verified before and after the patch, gcc119 machine (AIX) could not build > any run-time library, > now it can. > > Ready to be installed? > Thanks,

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add test case for pack/unpack bifs at soft-float [PR105334]

2022-04-27 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > Thank you for doing this testcase. > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:29:07PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > > As discussed in PR105334, this patch is to add the test coverage for > > the two recent fixes r12-8091 and r12-8226 from Seghe

Re: PING^2 [PATCH v2] rs6000: Use direct move for char/short vector CTOR [PR96933]

2020-11-02 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> As Segher's suggestion in the PR, for 128bit_direct_move, this new > >> version leverages vector pack insns instead of vector perms with > >> one control vector. The performance evaluation shows that it's on > >> par with the pre

Re: [32/32] fixinclude

2020-11-03 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:18 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > AIX needed a fixinclude. It contained > > typedef struct {...} *ptr; > > that's an ODR landmine. Fixed by giving the struct a name Okay. Thanks, David

[PATCH] rs6000.c DECL_IS_BUILTIN bootstrap fix

2020-11-09 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
rs6000: Fix bootstrap after r11-4793. The patch omitted a change for rs6000.c, fixed thus. gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_mangle_decl_assembler_name): ChangeDECL_IS_BUILTIN -> DECL_IS_UNDECLARED_BUILTIN. diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.

Re: [PATCH] Simplify testing symbol sections

2020-11-14 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
> Jeffrey Law wrote: > I worry a bit about the less common native targets -- aix, hpux and the > like. But testing them is too painful to contemplate these days. I'm > sure those with access to suitable hardware will chime in if something > is amiss. All of these testcases now fail on AIX w

  1   2   3   4   >