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 5D3313858C27; Mon, 2 May 2022 21:38:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5D3313858C27 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 242LaLlP029101; Mon, 2 May 2022 16:36:21 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 242LaKA9029100; Mon, 2 May 2022 16:36:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:36:19 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: ppc: conditionalize vsx-only simd intrinsics Message-ID: <20220502213619.GW25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20220428130306.GS25951@gate.crashing.org> 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=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 21:38:26 -0000 Hi! On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:53:40PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 28, 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:09:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> + "no __intrinsic_type support for [long] double on PPC w/o VSX"); > > This change isn't in the changelog. > > It is, it's just that long double is dealt with differently from the > other types, so requiring VSX for it takes a different form: It changes a diagnostic message. Incorrectly, even. The changelog does not talk about this. The only thing I use changelogs for nowadays is to help reviewing code. So when things are missing it stands out like a sore thumb. > > * include/experimental/bits/simd.h [__ALTIVEC__]: Require VSX > > for double, long long, and 64-bit long and 64-bit long double > > intrinsic types. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, that does not talk about changing a diagnostic message. > > The message should not say "long > > double" without qualifying it as "64-bit long double". > > How about qualifying both such messages as in this incremental patchlet: Send full patches always please. Not patches relative to some non-existing state :-) Thanks, Segher