On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:21:32AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 1/28/22 5:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:21AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> When introducing the new built-in support, I tried to match as many > >> existing error messages as possible. One common form was "argument X must > >> be a Y-bit unsigned literal". Another was "argument X must be a literal > >> between X' and Y', inclusive". During reviews, Segher requested that I > >> eventually convert all messages of the first form into the second form for > >> consistency. That's what this patch does, replacing all <x>-form > >> constraints (first form) with <x,y>-form constraints (second form). > > Well, I asked for the error messages to be clearer and more consistent > > like that. I don't think changing our source code like this is an > > improvement (*we* know what a 5-bit signed number is). Do you think > > after your patch it is clearer and we will make fewer errors? > > No, I don't think the patch is a particular improvement. It sounds like > I may have misinterpreted what you were looking for here. Please let me > know what I might do differently. > > For example, if we leave the <x> format in place in the source, I could > change the error messages that we produce to calculate the minimum and > maximum allowed values. Then we'd still have the changes to the test > cases, but fewer changes to the source. Thoughts?
That is exactly what I asked for, and what I still think is the best option. I haven't tried it out though, so there may be arguments against this :-) Segher
