This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Add bounds checking to vqdm*_lane intrinsics via a qualifier that also flips endianness
- From: Charles Baylis <charles dot baylis at linaro dot org>
- To: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:15:41 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Add bounds checking to vqdm*_lane intrinsics via a qualifier that also flips endianness
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <545B4B2E dot 4010101 at arm dot com> <CADnVucDXuJ=Oz=GMoYtXz-PsE=fzva56gs3jSO+CZLJdbbJjow at mail dot gmail dot com>
Resending as text/plain
On 11 November 2014 15:14, Charles Baylis <charles.baylis@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 November 2014 10:19, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> This generates out-of-range errors at compile- (rather than assemble-)time
>> for the vqdm*_lane intrinsics, and also provides a single place to do
>> bigendian lane-swapping for all those intrinsics (and others to follow in
>> later patches). This allows us to remove many define_expands that just do a
>> range-check and endian-swap before outputting the RTL for a corresponding
>> "_internal" insn.
>>
>> Changes to aarch64-simd.md are not as big as they look, they are highly
>> repetitive, like the code they are removing! Testcases are also repetitive,
>> as unfortunately dg-error doesn't care *how many* errors there were matching
>> it's pattern, as long as at least 1, hence having to separate each into own
>> file - the last "0" in the dg-error disables the line-number checking, as
>> the line numbers in our error messages refer to lines within arm_neon.h
>> rather than within the test case. (They do at least mention the user
>> function containing the call to the intrinsic.)
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>>
>
> It looks like there are a few places where you have 8 spaces where a tab
> ought to be. Other than that, it looks good to me (but I can't approve)
>
> I am looking making errors found in arm_neon.h a bit more user friendly,
> which depends on checking bounds on constant int parameters as you've done
> here.
>
> Do you plan to do similar changes for loads/stores/shifts, and also for the
> ARM back-end? I can help out if you don't already have patches in
> development.
>
> Charles