This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Uros Bizjak <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Richard Biener
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Uros Bizjak <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Richard Biener
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> So I'd try the "easy" way of expanding if (__builtin_cpu_supports ("sse4.1"))
>>>> as the sse4.1 sequence is just a single instruction. The interesting part
>>>> of the story will be to make sure we can emit that even if ! TARGET_ROUND ...
>>>> Uros, any idea how to accomplish this? Or is the idea of a "local" ifunc
>>>> better? Note the ABI boundary will be expensive but I guess the conditional
>>>> sequence as well (and it will disturb RA even if predicted to have SSE 4.1).
>>> TARGET_ROUND is just:
>>> /* SSE4.1 defines round instructions */
>>> #define OPTION_MASK_ISA_ROUND OPTION_MASK_ISA_SSE4_1
>>> #define TARGET_ISA_ROUND ((ix86_isa_flags & OPTION_MASK_ISA_ROUND) != 0)
>>> I don't remember the history around the #define, once upon a time
>>> probably made sense, but nowadays it looks that it can be simply
>>> substituted with TARGET_SSE4_1.
>> Sure but we want the backend to use a TARGET_ROUND guarded define_insn
>> when TARGET_ROUND is false but inside a runtime conditional ensuring that
>> TARGET_ROUND is satisfied. With doing this with ifuncs we'd mark the function
>> with a proper target attribute but within a function?
> How about something intrinsic headers are using?
(... somehow managed to press send too early ...)
There we use GCC_push_options and GCC_target pragmas. Maybe we also
need corresponding __ROUND__ define defined by the compiler.