From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7975B385700A for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:41:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7975B385700A Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16F1XPFU029555; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:41:01 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 39sc2ykw2v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:41:00 -0400 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16F1Y3x1031716; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:41:00 -0400 Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 39sc2ykw2k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:41:00 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16F1ciUU032163; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:59 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 39q368h2rf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:58 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 16F1euiY35520904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:56 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2A142047; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3870B42049; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from KewenLins-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [9.197.236.160]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:40:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] vect: Recog mul_highpart pattern To: Segher Boessenkool References: <0b72fa77-a281-35e6-34e3-17cf26f18bc1@linux.ibm.com> <20210714193246.GB1583@gate.crashing.org> Cc: Richard Biener , GCC Patches , Bill Schmidt , richard.sandiford@arm.com From: "Kewen.Lin" Message-ID: <08efc2b2-dd61-1c15-df14-ebfcede2c664@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:40:52 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210714193246.GB1583@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: RfJFCDQM2Ooe8WYATd22e5irM6jWQZmr X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: MEiQCrU_oTDUoAfFJGiE0H5gIle7-sbM X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-14_14:2021-07-14, 2021-07-14 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2107150007 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:41:04 -0000 on 2021/7/15 上午3:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:32:24PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> TBH, 79 vs. 80 isn't normally something I'd worry about when reviewing >> new code. But I know in the past people have asked for 79 to be used >> for the “end+1” reason, so I don't think we should “fix” existing code >> that honours the 79 limit so that it no longer does, especially when the >> lines surrounding the code aren't changing. > > The normal rule is you cannot go over 80. It is perfectly fine to have > shorter lines, certainly if that is nice for some other reason, so > automatically (by some tool) changing this is Just Wrong. > OK, could this be applied to changelog entry too? I guess yes? BR, Kewen