From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 19D7A3858D28; Mon,  4 Mar 2024 22:00:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 19D7A3858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709589646;
	bh=xltOgETRCcWUx6+4X8OoPn1/FB+nj0HJQNWkqxQu5Vg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=sfWfUQ/ybvQF9tKqP528ZO6Ak7duxCXpMGTcugOWMoXwLPaGb530jalVcOrfPiLMu
	 PMg3LqzviGMIIP4QvqvcjyefVIbcvX8QBLZg3l3eXX3j8t27TJKxCptP/ewfem+G5c
	 JJon5Kh3bHgacqEuUZBncXm92hW6OKJbyk8hC+YE=
From: "roland.illig at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114083] Possible word play on conditional/unconditional
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 22:00:45 +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: roland.illig at gmx dot de
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: <bug-114083-4-nwGZfGUA3e@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114083-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114083-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114083

--- Comment #6 from Roland Illig <roland.illig at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #4)
> The flag enables the use of the conditional-move operations even with
> hardware that has no support for such operations, hence unconditionally.

Thank you for your explanation, that made the intention much clearer to me.

There's a problem with the wording though. On a platform that doesn't suppo=
rt
conditional-move operations, it's not possible to _use_ conditional-move
operations. Period. It's only possible to _emulate_ the behavior of these
operations.

I'm not sure how consistently the words 'operation' and 'instruction' are u=
sed
in the GCC code base and documentation, but I mixed them up in my mind when=
 I
tried to translate this option.

> if someone has
> a better proposal, then please feel free to submit a patch.  Or would:
>=20
> Enable conditional-move operations unconditionally.
>=20
> be preferable?

No. Above, you wrote that the branchless instructions would be selected _if_
they are cheaper than the equivalent branch instructions. This is a conditi=
on,
thus the word 'unconditionally' doesn't fit.

What about this?
> Prefer branchless move instructions where cheaper.=