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
