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 D3DCA3858422 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 21:33:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D3DCA3858422 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass 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 1AILWLhG012959; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:32:21 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 1AILWKlH012958; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:32:20 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:32:20 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Bill Schmidt Cc: GCC Patches , David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Builtins test changes for BFP scalar tests Message-ID: <20211118213220.GC614@gate.crashing.org> References: <585a2224-e076-9d26-921b-6db56f1606b9@linux.ibm.com> <20211117213236.GV614@gate.crashing.org> <3a4c779c-8476-5619-3632-4feb5c3066b2@linux.ibm.com> <20211118211628.GZ614@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP 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: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 21:33:22 -0000 On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:30:48PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > On 11/18/21 3:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:06:05PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >>> I don't like that at all. The user didn't write the _vsx thing, and it > >>> isn't documented either (neither is the _vec one, but that is a separate > >>> issue, specific to this builtin). > >> I feel like I haven't explained this well. This kind of thing has been in > >> existence forever even in the old builtins code. The combination of the > >> error showing the internal builtin name, and the note tying the overload > >> name to the internal builtin name, has been there all along. The name of > >> the internal builtin is pretty meaningless. The only thing that's interesting > >> in this case is that we previously didn't get this *for this specific case* > >> because the old code went to a generic fallback. But in many other cases > >> you get exactly this same kind of error message for the old code. > > Yes. And it still is a regression (in *this* case). > > Sorry, I don't understand.  Why specifically is this a regression? It is wrong now, in ways that it wasn't wrong before. That is the definition of regression! Segher