On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 10:05:19PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/4/21 3:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:40:20PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > >> The LLVM and GCC teams agreed to rename the __builtin_mma_assemble_pair and > >> __builtin_mma_disassemble_pair built-ins to __builtin_vsx_assemble_pair and > >> __builtin_vsx_disassemble_pair respectively. It's too late to remove the > >> old names, so this patch adds support for creating compatibility built-ins > >> (ie, multiple built-in functions generate the same code) and then creates > >> compatibility built-ins using the new names.
> >> +#ifndef RS6000_BUILTIN_COMPAT > >> + #undef BU_COMPAT > >> + #define BU_COMPAT(ENUM, COMPAT_NAME) > > > > Please do not do #undef unless necessary: it hides bugs (and that causes > > more bugs). > > I thought it was needed, since rs6000-builtin.def is #included into > rs6000-call.c and rs6000.h multiple times. Ah yes, that is a good enough reason. Bill's rewrite will clean all this (and much more) up anyway, so it is fine for now. > >> BU_MMA_3 (ASSEMBLE_PAIR, "assemble_pair", MISC, mma_assemble_pair) > >> +BU_COMPAT (MMA_BUILTIN_ASSEMBLE_PAIR, "vsx_assemble_pair") > > > > You should do those the other way around (the mma_ one is the > > compatibility one). This matters, because if you disable the > > compatibility builtins the vsx_ one should still be there, but not the > > old name. (It also makes more sense of course). > > I actually did it that way initially, but decided to do it this was > just to make the patch smaller. You are correct that it's "more" > correct to rename it though. It is less work (less confusion) in the future, and the number of lines isn't important anyway :-) Segher
