On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:47:20PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:38:20AM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > > > @@ -2420,6 +2423,8 @@ BU_P9V_64BIT_VSX_2 (VSIEDPF, > > > "scalar_insert_exp_dp", CONST, xsiexpdpf) > > > > > > BU_FLOAT128_HW_VSX_2 (VSIEQP, "scalar_insert_exp_q", CONST, > > > xsiexpqp_kf) > > > BU_FLOAT128_HW_VSX_2 (VSIEQPF, "scalar_insert_exp_qp", CONST, > > > xsiexpqpf_kf) > > > +BU_FLOAT128_HW_VSX_2 (VSIETF, "scalar_insert_exp_tf", CONST, > > > xsiexpqp_tf) > > > +BU_FLOAT128_HW_VSX_2 (VSIETFF, "scalar_insert_exp_tfp", CONST, > > > xsiexpqpf_tf) > > > > Ok if its ok, but the pattern catches my eye. Should that be VSIETFP ? > > (or named "scalar_insert_exp_tff")? > > That is the existing function in the library. All I'm doing is adding TF > versions of the existing functions.
Sure, but logically the macro for scalar_insert_exp_tfp would be VSIETFP (instead of VSIETF) (and that is a new macro name fwiw). So please fix that? Segher
