PING^2 [PATCH] rs6000: Remove builtin mask check from builtin_decl [PR102347]

Kewen.Lin linkw@linux.ibm.com
Thu Nov 4 10:58:36 GMT 2021


Hi,

As the discussions and the testing result under the main thread, this
patch would be safe.

Ping for this:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580357.html

BR,
Kewen

> 
> on 2021/9/28 下午4:13, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As the discussion in PR102347, currently builtin_decl is invoked so
>> early, it's when making up the function_decl for builtin functions,
>> at that time the rs6000_builtin_mask could be wrong for those
>> builtins sitting in #pragma/attribute target functions, though it
>> will be updated properly later when LTO processes all nodes.
>>
>> This patch is to align with the practice i386 port adopts, also
>> align with r10-7462 by relaxing builtin mask checking in some places.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regress-tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and
>> powerpc64-linux-gnu P8.
>>
>> Is it ok for trunk?
>>
>> BR,
>> Kewen
>> -----
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 	PR target/102347
>> 	* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_builtin_decl): Remove builtin
>> 	mask check.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 	PR target/102347
>> 	* gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c: New test.
>>
>> ---
>>  gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c             | 14 ++++----------
>>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> index fd7f24da818..15e0e09c07d 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
>> @@ -13775,23 +13775,17 @@ rs6000_init_builtins (void)
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>> -/* Returns the rs6000 builtin decl for CODE.  */
>> +/* Returns the rs6000 builtin decl for CODE.  Note that we don't check
>> +   the builtin mask here since there could be some #pragma/attribute
>> +   target functions and the rs6000_builtin_mask could be wrong when
>> +   this checking happens, though it will be updated properly later.  */
>>
>>  tree
>>  rs6000_builtin_decl (unsigned code, bool initialize_p ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>  {
>> -  HOST_WIDE_INT fnmask;
>> -
>>    if (code >= RS6000_BUILTIN_COUNT)
>>      return error_mark_node;
>>
>> -  fnmask = rs6000_builtin_info[code].mask;
>> -  if ((fnmask & rs6000_builtin_mask) != fnmask)
>> -    {
>> -      rs6000_invalid_builtin ((enum rs6000_builtins)code);
>> -      return error_mark_node;
>> -    }
>> -
>>    return rs6000_builtin_decls[code];
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..05c439a8dac
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr102347.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +/* { dg-do link } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target power10_ok } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lto } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-flto -mdejagnu-cpu=power9" } */
>> +
>> +/* Verify there are no error messages in LTO mode.  */
>> +
>> +#pragma GCC target "cpu=power10"
>> +int main ()
>> +{
>> +  float *b;
>> +  __vector_quad c;
>> +  __builtin_mma_disassemble_acc (b, &c);
>> +  return 0;
>> +}
>> --
>> 2.27.0
>>
> 


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list