From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129588 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2020 20:55:52 -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 129579 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jan 2020 20:55:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=king, King, street 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, 06 Jan 2020 20:55:51 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 006KmkjU138583; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 15:55:48 -0500 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xb8wfx8p6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Jan 2020 15:55:48 -0500 Received: from m0098413.ppops.net (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 006Kn7mk139238; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 15:55:48 -0500 Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xb8wfx8nt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Jan 2020 15:55:48 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 006KrRb7004672; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55:47 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.15]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2xajb6jg31-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:55:47 +0000 Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.237]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 006Ktkok31588752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55:46 GMT Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A567C605A; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C93CC6059; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ibm-toto.the-meissners.org (unknown [9.32.77.177]) by b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55:45 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:55:00 -0000 From: Michael Meissner To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Michael Meissner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH] V11 patch #5 of 15, Optimize vec_extract of a vector in memory with a PC-relative address Message-ID: <20200106205543.GA5537@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Meissner , Segher Boessenkool , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn References: <20191220231507.GA18386@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20191220235553.GE28993@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20191224162455.GI4505@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191224162455.GI4505@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:24:55AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:55:53PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_reg_to_addr_mask): New helper > > function to identify the address mask of a hard register. > > Do this as a separate patch please. That refactoring is pre-approved. > Please explain in the function comment what an "address mask" is. Or > better yet, don't call it a "mask", it isn't a mask? It is called mask because everywhere else in rs6000.c uses 'addr_mask' or just mask. It is a mask of valid bits. > Also various of the names here still have "reload" in it, which doesn't > really make much sense. When these functions were written, it was in the context of supporting the secondary reload functions, and so reload was in the name. I will make a refactoring patch that uses the current names. If we want to change all of the uses we can in a future patch. -- 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