From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E320B385801C; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 22:15:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E320B385801C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1709763338; bh=F/mCQ1klAPYrvRha6Tr81+xapgtiFL8x4+ylk4LQc5g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CuIqfygqSjWTwdADJHkD1+Gtz+nli2G55XwV23C8DlBLVSjZUC/Yazl2LAAGhsV+7 3eWCvfAaY47b7dslVnXfgzHJAsmmIHuAU8sUlmS+Yx5tc6Yt6KiqGcZ5w4qOfdnAr3 2Kbs9zS+pZwivzoQIeoM0I4ksvnFNj5MgYHF7rzA= From: "macro at orcam dot me.uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/114083] Possible word play on conditional/unconditional Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:15:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: macro at orcam dot me.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114083 --- Comment #7 from Maciej W. Rozycki --- (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #6) > There's a problem with the wording though. On a platform that doesn't > support conditional-move operations, it's not possible to _use_ > conditional-move operations. Period. It's only possible to _emulate_ the > behavior of these operations. There's just too much implementer's speak in the option description here. Sorry about this. What the option internally enables it is a set of named RTL machine description patterns that implement the respective conditional-move operations. So in terms of RTL the operations are indeed available unconditionally. But I guess the compiler's internal representation is less of an interest from the user's point of view. What do you think of Andreas's suggestion for the English wording?=