Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

compiler-rt: Implement multc3 - quad-precision complex multiplication
ClosedPublic

Authored by emaste on Mar 30 2015, 1:21 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 20, 4:04 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 28 2024, 6:38 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 27 2024, 7:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 27 2024, 7:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 26 2024, 4:53 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 8 2024, 7:19 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 19 2023, 11:04 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 19 2023, 10:33 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

This is the same implementation as mulxc3

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

emaste retitled this revision from to compiler-rt: Implement multc3 - quad-precision complex multiplication.
emaste updated this object.
emaste edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
emaste added reviewers: andrew, dim.
emaste added a subscriber: ed.
ed added a reviewer: ed.

Looks good to me. Thanks!

Question: this hasn't been upstreamed yet, right? If looks like compiler-rt has a version for ppc that uses a similar algorithm, but is structured differently. Does this version supersede that one?

Would it make sense to submit this upstream first? I have no strong preference. :-)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 30 2015, 1:33 PM
In D2173#4, @ed wrote:

Looks good to me. Thanks!

Question: this hasn't been upstreamed yet, right?

That's correct. I've started a thread on llvmdev about missing compiler-rt functionality for quad precision, but want to get a concrete version of the change into review/discussion.

If looks like compiler-rt has a version for ppc that uses a similar algorithm, but is structured differently. Does this version supersede that one?

Hmm, good point. I think this could supersede that one - the algorithm is about the same, with a key difference that the ppc one uses explicit calls to __gcc_qmul rather than just a * c and relying on the compiler generating the calls itself.

Would it make sense to submit this upstream first? I have no strong preference. :-)

My immediate goal is to get libcompiler-rt building for arm64 for us, and I'm a bit leery of the latency involved in potential upstream discussion (or bikeshed). I'd like to say it's being simultaneously submitted/discussed upstream, and I'll replace our local change with the upstream implementation when it's resolved.

Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying!

emaste updated this revision to Diff 4724.

Closed by commit rS281221 (authored by @emaste).