Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rework 128-bit complex multiply and divide.

[Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:35:44PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > +complex_multiply_builtin_code (machine_mode mode)
> > +{
> > +  return (built_in_function) (BUILT_IN_COMPLEX_MUL_MIN + mode
> > +			      - MIN_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT);
> > +}
> 
> There should be an assert that the mode is as expected
>   gcc_assert (IN_RANGE (mode, MIN_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT, MAX_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT));
> or such.
> 
> Using more temporaries should make this simpler as well, obviate the
> need for explicit casts, and make everything fit on short lines.

While I can use a temporary to shorten the line, I can't eliminate the case, or
I'll get a warning about implicit conversion from int to the enum
built_in_function.  Here is what I will use:

static inline built_in_function
complex_multiply_builtin_code (machine_mode mode)
{
  gcc_assert (IN_RANGE (mode, MIN_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT, MAX_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT));
  int func = BUILT_IN_COMPLEX_MUL_MIN + mode - MIN_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT;
  return (built_in_function) func;
}

-- 
Michael Meissner, IBM
PO Box 98, Ayer, Massachusetts, USA, 01432
email: meissner@linux.ibm.com