On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 09:58:50AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> > > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 01:52:20PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> We realized recently that the use of "rs6000" in a builtin name doesn't > >> agree > >> with our normal naming conventions. Thus this patch changes such a builtin > >> to __builtin_powerpc_speculation_barrier instead. > >> > >> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is > >> this okay for trunk? > > > > Most of our builtins have *no* powerpc or similar in the name, and the > > two that do have "ppc". > > > > Should we use __builtin_speculation_barrier? It sounds more likely > > that other archs will want that as well, than that it will conflict. > > That was my initial proposal. Richard asked me to insert the "rs6000_" to > keep this > in a separate namespace for the time being. There is still discussion about a > more general speculation barrier builtin for all targets, though that has > languished > for over a month now. > > > > For the .md patterns we already have various that are named rs6000_* > > (and none ppc* or power*). > > > Would it be reasonable to go with __builtin_ppc_speculation_barrier for the > builtin name and revert to rs6000_* in the .md patterns, etc.?
Yeah that sounds fine. Okay for trunk with such changes. Thanks! Segher
