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 5EE9D3857419 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:17:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5EE9D3857419 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 257JGa8i018867; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:16:36 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 257JGZ8t018866; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:16:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:16:35 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: will schmidt Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , David Edelsohn , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH,RS6000 2/5] Rework the RS6000_BTM defines. Message-ID: <20220607191635.GJ25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <21f1b472875d5c75e151e647c5182a74e426559f.camel@vnet.ibm.com> <82211644fb1f61894e5b99a7c5fdb8e73539ddc0.camel@vnet.ibm.com> <254e46d5-4f0d-00a4-a90c-ef914e1b600c@linux.ibm.com> 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=-3.2 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=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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, 07 Jun 2022 19:17:38 -0000 On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:45:13AM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > Additional comments below. > I've made note of the comments, and request (ask) that this be > approved, with a pinky promise that I intend to follow up on the > suggestions in my next patch series. Suggestions aren't requirements :-) > > If we drop bu_mask in function rs6000_target_modify_macros, function > > rs6000_builtin_mask_calculate will have only one use place in > > function > > rs6000_option_override_internal. IMHO this function > > rs6000_builtin_mask_calculate also becomes stale after built-in > > function > > rewriting and needs some updates with new bif framework later. > > The DEBUG output using the builtin_mask still appeared to have some > potential value, but I can make a point to investigate that further. "Potential value" is a value of zero, if not a negative value. If some debug output has real and current value (which are two sides of the same coin), it will be apparent to every reader. Debug output that isn't useful currently is throw-away, and should be thrown away. It is easy to recreate (it is a totally boring number of print statements after all), and you can pull it from git history anyway. Segher