This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
target attributes/pragmas changing vector instruction availability and custom types
- From: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>
- To: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:17:26 +0100
- Subject: target attributes/pragmas changing vector instruction availability and custom types
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
I'm working on enabling target attributes and pragmas on aarch64 and I'm stuck on a particular issue.
I want to be able to use a target pragma to enable SIMD support in a SIMD intrinsics header file.
So it will look like this:
$ cat simd_header.h
#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC target ("arch=armv8-a+simd")
<SIMD code, say SIMD intrinsics definitions>
#pragma GCC pop_options
I would then include it in a file with a function tagged with a simd target attribute:
$ cat foo.c
foo (uint32x4_t a)
return simd_intrinsic (a); //simd_intrinsic defined in simd_header.h and implemented by a target builtin
This works fine for me. But if I try to compile this without SIMD support, say: aarch64-none-elf-gcc -c -march=armv8-a+nosimd foo.c
I get an ICE during builtin expansion time.
I think I've tracked it down to the problem that the type uint32x4_t is a builtin type that we define in the backend
(with add_builtin_type) during the target builtins initialisation code.
From what I can see, this code gets called early on after the command line options have been processed,
but before target pragmas or attributes are processed, so the builtin types are laid out assuming that no SIMD is available,
as per the command line option -march=armv8-a+nosimd, but later while expanding the builtin in simd_intrinsic with SIMD available
the ICE occurs. I think that is because the types were not re-laid out.
I'm somewhat stumped on ideas to work around this issue.
I notice that rs6000 also defines custom builtin vector types.
Michael, did you notice any issue similar to what I described above?
Would re-laying the builtin vector type on target attribute changes be a valid way to go forward here?