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 25C213858D3C; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:15:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 25C213858D3C 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 29JLENDd020417; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:14:23 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 29JLEMPT020414; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:14:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:14:21 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Andrew Pinski Cc: Haochen Jiang , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, aoliva@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, gnu@amylaar.uk, dje.gcc@gmail.com, olegendo@gcc.gnu.org, claziss@synopsys.com, mfortune@gmail.com, davem@redhat.com, dave.anglin@bell.net, hubicka@ucw.cz, richard.earnshaw@arm.com, rguenther@suse.de, marcus.shawcroft@arm.com, ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com, hongtao.liu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a parameter for the builtin function of prefetch to align with LLVM Message-ID: <20221019211421.GQ25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20221014083406.8406-1-haochen.jiang@intel.com> <20221014083406.8406-2-haochen.jiang@intel.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=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:14:28AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Do the testcases really need to be changed rather than adding new testcases? > Usually it is better if the testcases not change unless really needed > to be. That is do these testcases pass without being changed? If not > this seems not backwards compatible change and is not something which > we should do. Otherwise you should just add new testcases instead. Yes, that is another reason why adding parameters to random builtins is not a good idea :-) s/random/only vaguely related/, if you want. This also makes all existing code using these builtins invalid. If you need such testcase changes, that is a red flag. Segher