From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56564 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2015 17:42:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 56550 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2015 17:42:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:42:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB355C0B0207; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tB2HgJdf030512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:42:20 -0500 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id tB2HgHAY018154; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 18:42:17 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id tB2HgFMS015090; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 18:42:15 +0100 Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:42:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jeff Law Cc: Kirill Yukhin , Joseph Myers , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH, VECTOR ABI] Add __attribute__((__simd__)) to GCC. Message-ID: <20151202174214.GU5675@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20151027140655.GC46998@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20151027141505.GG478@tucnak.redhat.com> <20151028091601.GA53647@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20151029085447.GP478@tucnak.redhat.com> <20151110084414.GA62112@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20151110085804.GW5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <20151113115430.GA63972@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20151113121631.GN5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <20151202124642.GA39390@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <565F2CFD.6080301@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565F2CFD.6080301@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:40:13AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Why not use "unmasked" and "masked" instead of "notinbranch" and "inbranch"? > If those terms come from OpenMP or are in use by other compilers (llvm, icc, > whatever), then I guess we should stick with them. Otherwise we should > consider [un]masked which are consistent with the vector abi document. notinbranch/inbranch are OpenMP clauses used for this purpose. Jakub