From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED173858010 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:31:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8ED173858010 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B31pa2b004663; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:31:03 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cq9xrsdb0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Dec 2021 03:31:03 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1B33TnUN032275; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:31:03 GMT Received: from ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (6c.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cq9xrsd9h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Dec 2021 03:31:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B33RZrc017446; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:30:56 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ckcaa7ang-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Dec 2021 03:30:56 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1B33UqO912124564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:30:53 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCC752052; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:30:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from KewenLins-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [9.200.53.118]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E767452051; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 03:30:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059] To: Michael Meissner References: <3f2c6df2-e458-483c-facd-148a3cc3aead@linux.ibm.com> <20211129165712.GU614@gate.crashing.org> Cc: Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , Bill Schmidt , David Edelsohn From: "Kewen.Lin" Message-ID: <53d62777-589b-cc18-6363-41f78cb8db15@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:30:49 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: IvoqE6O-uRmxBz1FbYaOghCHPf6yjMRR X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: vKAnE6v4n3EFuRak3YR7nyK21XTsFX5u X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-03_02,2021-12-02_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112030020 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham 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: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 03:31:07 -0000 Hi Mike, on 2021/12/3 ÉÏÎç8:51, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:57:12AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Why are there OPTION_MASKs for separate P10 fusion types here, as well as >> MASK_P10_FUSION? > > Well going back in time, before we used rs6000_isa_flags, we used the default > flag word for MASK arguments. Unfortunately, the default flag word is only > 32-bits, and we needed more mask bits, so we moved to rs6000_isa_flags, which > is HOST_WIDE_INT. > > Unfortunately, the options infrastructure used 'OPTION_MASK_' instead of > 'MASK_'. So we have a bunch of macros in rs6000.h that map 'MASK_' > to 'OPTION_MASK_'. > > We should clean this up and use 'OPTION_MASK_' everywhere, but so far it > hasn't percolated to the top as being important enough to do. > > As new options are added, people just clone the code and add new macros, even > though in theory nobody should be using MASK_P10_FUSION_. > Thanks for the explanation on the history. Fortunately now for Power10 fusion, we have only one defined MASK_P10_FUSION but not the other MASK_P10_FUSION_<...>. As you explained, I will use OPTION_MASK_P10_FUSION and OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION instead. BR, Kewen