From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53174 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2019 20:28:26 -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 53159 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2019 20:28:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=discreet, King, 5-10 X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.158.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:28:24 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x89KRB8Y088446; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:28:22 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uwwnvr6v6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:28:22 -0400 Received: from m0098413.ppops.net (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x89KSMWU091837; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:28:22 -0400 Received: from ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (1b.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.27]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uwwnvr6v0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:28:22 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x89KOWq2021625; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:21 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2uv466n8bv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:28:21 +0000 Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.106]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x89KSLGg33948136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:21 GMT Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E802805A; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3620628058; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ibm-toto.the-meissners.org (unknown [9.32.77.177]) by b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Meissner To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Michael Meissner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V3, #1 of 10], Add basic pc-relative support Message-ID: <20190909202819.GA22033@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Meissner , Segher Boessenkool , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com References: <20190826173320.GA7958@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190826195414.GA11790@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190828171458.GF31406@gate.crashing.org> <20190828212655.GA18161@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190829213207.GM31406@gate.crashing.org> <20190906001802.GA16921@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190906125051.GB9749@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190906125051.GB9749@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 07:50:51AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:18:02PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:32:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > This is not just for reload anymore, so please don't name it that. Renaming > > > things isn't hard, this isn't a public API or anything :-) > > > > This hasn't just be for reload for several years now. > > Yes, and since you are extending it a lot now, it is high time it is fixed. > > > Do you have a name you prefer? > > As I said, I don't think all these things should be lumped together at > all, and also you shouldn't precompute everything (as fixed values > always, after that precompute) into arrays anyway. Instead, use > functions for all accessors, which can have simple and clear logic what > they return when. > > If it is hard to find good names for your interfaces, most likely your > interfaces aren't structured very well. Here is where I disagree. I tend to think pre-computing the stuff saves time. When you are using it with pre-computed masks and such, it takes 5-10 instructions to make the decision, while if you have to re-do the tests (for example, checking size, checking whether it is int/fp/vector, it can involve many more tests than a simple load/mask type test). But if it is the only way to get things in, I can look at not using the address masks any further, and instead have discreet tests. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797