Hi! On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:54:10AM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > These defines are no longer used once the rs6000 built-in > reworks were completed. Would be good to remove them.
:-) > There was a reference to RS6000_BTC_SPECIAL in a TODO comment > in rs6000-builtins.def. That comment remains, but I have updated > the comment to refer to "SPECIAL" processing, instead of having it > refer directly to the RS6000_BTC_SPECIAL macro. > > 2022-05-17 Will Schmidt <will_schm...@vnet.ibm.com> > > gcc/ > * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def: rephrase > RS6000_BTC_SPECIAL in comment. "Rephrase", capital R. > * config/rs6000/rs6000.h: Remove definitions One space after a colon. > RS6000_BTC_UNARY, RS6000_BTC_BINARY, > RS6000_BTC_TERNARY, RS6000_BTC_QUATERNARY, > RS6000_BTC_QUINARY, RS6000_BTC_SENARY, RS6000_BTC_OPND_MASK, > RS6000_BTC_SPECIAL, RS6000_BTC_PREDICATE, RS6000_BTC_ABS, > RS6000_BTC_DST, RS6000_BTC_TYPE_MASK, RS6000_BTC_MISC, > RS6000_BTC_CONST, RS6000_BTC_PURE, RS6000_BTC_FP, > RS6000_BTC_QUAD, RS6000_BTC_PAIR, RS6000_BTC_QUADPAIR, > RS6000_BTC_ATTR_MASK, RS6000_BTC_SPR, RS6000_BTC_VOID, > RS6000_BTC_CR, RS6000_BTC_OVERLOADED, RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE, > RS6000_BTC_MISC_MASK, RS6000_BTC_MEM, RS6000_BTC_SAT, > RS6000_BTM_ALWAYS Sentences end in a dot, and every changelog line is a sentence. But, this should be * config/rs6000/rs6000.h (RS6000_BTC_UNARY, RS6000_BTC_BINARY, RS6000_BTC_TERNARY, RS6000_BTC_QUATERNARY, RS6000_BTC_QUINARY, ... RS6000_BTC_SAT, RS6000_BTM_ALWAYS): Delete. > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def > @@ -1423,11 +1423,11 @@ > > pure vsc __builtin_vsx_ld_elemrev_v16qi (signed long, const void *); > LD_ELEMREV_V16QI vsx_ld_elemrev_v16qi {ldvec,endian} > > ; TODO: There is apparent intent in rs6000-builtin.def to have That file does no longer exist. > -; RS6000_BTC_SPECIAL processing for LXSDX, LXVDSX, and STXSDX, but there are > +; SPECIAL processing for LXSDX, LXVDSX, and STXSDX, but there are > ; no def_builtin calls for any of them. At some point, we may want to add a > ; set of built-ins for whichever vector types make sense for these. Is the comment still relevant? If so a bit more rephrasing woukd be good; if not, just remove it? Okay for trunk with those things dealt with somehow. Thanks! Segher