[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:55:14 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To: Daniel Kolesa <daniel@...aforge.org>
CC: <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, <eery@...erfox.es>,
<musl@...ts.openwall.com>, Will Springer <skirmisher@...tonmail.com>, Palmer
Dabbelt via binutils <binutils@...rceware.org>, via libc-dev
<libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Joseph Myers wrote:
> The minimum supported architecture for powerpc64le (POWER8) has VSX. My
> understanding was that the suggestion was for 32-bit userspace to run
> under powerpc64le kernels running on POWER8 or later, meaning that such a
> 32-bit LE port, and any ABI designed for such a port, can assume VSX is
> available. Or does VSX not work, at the hardware level, for 32-bit
> POWER8? (In which case you could pick another ABI for binary128 argument
> passing and return.)
In fact, my understanding is that the ABI for passing binary128 values in
vector registers is perfectly implementable for processors with just VMX
(AltiVec) and not VSX. So if you do want to support binary128 for a new
ABI for either 32-bit LE or 32-bit or 64-bit BE, you don't need to require
VSX for that ABI, you just need to change any GCC requirement for VSX for
binary128 to allow it with VMX when building for your new ABI.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
