From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC34F3877405
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:15:24 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BC34F3877405
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=kernel.crashing.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 16LHEODK030731;
 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:14:24 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 16LHENSv030730;
 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:14:23 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to
 segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:14:23 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/55] rs6000: Write static initializations for built-in
 table
Message-ID: <20210721171423.GI1583@gate.crashing.org>
References: <cover.1623941441.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
 <a1104ad64054a0663befe51114267d4a0050708d.1623941441.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a1104ad64054a0663befe51114267d4a0050708d.1623941441.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR,
 T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:15:25 -0000

Hi!

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:19:05AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> 2021-06-07  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> gcc/
> 	* config/rs6000/rs6000-gen-builtins.c (write_bif_static_init): New
> 	function.
> 	(write_init_file): Call write_bif_static_init.

> +      for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++)
> +	res[j] = (bifp->proto.restr_opnd[j] == 0 ? "RES_NONE"
> +		  : (bifp->proto.restr[j] == RES_BITS ? "RES_BITS"
> +		     : (bifp->proto.restr[j] == RES_RANGE ? "RES_RANGE"
> +			: (bifp->proto.restr[j] == RES_VALUES ? "RES_VALUES"
> +			   : (bifp->proto.restr[j] == RES_VAR_RANGE
> +			      ? "RES_VAR_RANGE" : "ERROR")))));

The unnecessary parens make this harder to read.

Having ? on the same line as the condition but : on another is not
normal style.

Some "if"s would be more readable anyway?


Okay for trunk.  Thanks!


Segher