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 B2E1B3858413
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:52:17 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B2E1B3858413
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 17QMpG0i027690;
 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:51:17 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 17QMpGeT027689;
 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:51:16 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to
 segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:51:16 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
 David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Inline IBM long double __gcc_qsub
Message-ID: <20210826225116.GJ1583@gate.crashing.org>
References: <CAGWvny=Xe8TXx1Z6QUABj85-UAjGrRDfUYJBdqQUR2Txp9gg3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pmu0wt52.fsf@igel.home>
 <CAGWvny=toN2XQSN_XjArYcn4KYY3Lxkuk3ate5CTkhEtVQ4MQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGWvny=toN2XQSN_XjArYcn4KYY3Lxkuk3ate5CTkhEtVQ4MQQ@mail.gmail.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, 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: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:52:19 -0000

Hi!

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:57:35PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>             * config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble.c (ldouble_qadd_internal): Rename from
>             __gcc_qadd.
>             (__gcc_qadd): Call ldouble_qadd_internal.
>             (__gcc_qsub): Call ldouble_qadd_internal with second long double
>             argument negated.

Still looks good, please commit.  Thanks :-)

> +static inline IBM128_TYPE
> +ldouble_qadd_internal (double a, double aa, double c, double cc)

Does it end up actually inlined, or as one static function that both
__gcc_qadd and __gcc_qsub use?  This is fine for complexity, it is just
a simple tail-call jump, just wondering what the compiler thinks is best
here (it matters in other cases, if the inline function has conditional
branches for example).


Segher