From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0284C38515DB for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 23:47:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0284C38515DB 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 173Nkj84013891; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:46:45 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 173Nkiap013890; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:46:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:46:44 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: will schmidt Cc: Bill Schmidt , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 47/55] rs6000: Builtin expansion, part 4 Message-ID: <20210803234644.GX1583@gate.crashing.org> References: <1f28ba77c244256484e000eab60d041181612ff4.1623941442.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com> <3b98c985191f7d3d0be8ab19e6580887991c4d74.camel@vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b98c985191f7d3d0be8ab19e6580887991c4d74.camel@vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:47:47 -0000 On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:06:49PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 10:19 -0500, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > > + case RS6000_BIF_ST_ELEMREV_V1TI: > > + return (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? CODE_FOR_vsx_store_v1ti > > + : CODE_FOR_vsx_st_elemrev_v1ti); > > Hmm, would it be worthy to rename one of the pair so they both match "_st_" or "_store_" ? > > CODE_FOR_vsx_store_v1ti > CODE_FOR_vsx_st_elemrev_v1ti "st" is not a good name. "store" would be better, and it is not like three extra characters will kill you here. But is have to be changed in the machine description of course, these are existing pattern names. Segher