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 E8E013858D35 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:34:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E8E013858D35 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 20VMXZRQ024632; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:33:35 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 20VMXZKS024631; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:33:35 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:33:34 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Bill Schmidt Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] rs6000: Consolidate target built-ins code Message-ID: <20220131223334.GS614@gate.crashing.org> References: <9f4473f861d11ccc3bd11c05f37db041f849d8d6.1643390744.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com> <20220131213249.GO614@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:34:41 -0000 On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:01:58PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 1/31/22 3:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:22AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> Overloading support remains in rs6000-c.cc. > > So, what is needed to move that as well? Is moving that in the plan? > > No, as explained above, that code needs to stay in the "special" file > that the build machinery understands. It looks very difficult to > tease that apart, so I've given up on that. Sorry! Heh. And you don't see that as a challenge? Oh well, I could try :-) > >> +/* Support targetm.vectorize.builtin_mask_for_load. */ > >> +tree altivec_builtin_mask_for_load; > > "Support"? What does that mean? Please describe what this tree is. > > That comment is just moved. Yes, but that isn't clear in your patch (series). > This entire patch is just moving code. Not according to the changelog! It is hard to find the five, six, ten places with modification in an 1800-line patch (or what was it). > I already separated that out > from everything else. The only exception is the one I called out at > the beginning, that removing the builtin_mode_to_type[] array should > have been done previously, and it's convenient to just delete it as > part of this patch. > > So I can change these other things that you mention, but that isn't > really the point of this patch, so... I guess please advise. :-) Please make it less work for me to review your patches than it took you to write them! This often means you have to spend a bit more time and thought on it. As a side effect that makes better patches, you have something to win here as well (apart from your patches being reviewed easier :-) ) Segher