From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE874385782B for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:36:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BE874385782B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670279774; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-to: resent-from:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=4YMiV74gUBYB68N+ZNFo7gNnm8wek3UrIEjfqdHgnvA=; b=h+4FOs+BG3MEY4BR8Vj1M7x0geU79VfFwqKzU6FE5LUEAOPlhutw2tM/f98E6ShEMZHTpd 6gbQyvoOtQSpP92VkNfh/+HPeMfJdiH6PHR77TxCMa7tUFeAS7HIV+V0iNmsB8CLom0I22 rRL4WUXlQqSWkXWAL5NGFXV5UUb1C8s= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-128-eS_RfuxCPYajSFlu8MezAg-1; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:36:13 -0500 X-MC-Unique: eS_RfuxCPYajSFlu8MezAg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 055552823801 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.195.114]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAFAB23177; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:36:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2B5Ma8kG3424771 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:36:08 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2B5Ma7Yv3424770; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:36:07 +0100 Resent-From: Jakub Jelinek Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:36:07 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-To: Andrew MacLeod , Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 21:54:09 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Andrew MacLeod Cc: Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] range-op-float: Improve binary reverse operations Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <1f2b50a8-8f3c-690a-182b-c636fc2f86ed@redhat.com> <32b96813-616d-ba73-811f-8a36e70f9ecd@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham 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 Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to > avoid that sort of thing even though Aldy temporarily introduced them to > range-ops. Hes suppose to remove that next stage 1 :-P   Ideally anything > "special" is locally contained to the specific routine. Would a bool divide_op2 argument be better (perhaps defaulted to false)? Inlining float_binary_op_range_finish by hand doesn't seem to be a good idea, if it needs to be changed, it would need to be changed in multiple places... Jakub