"Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Hi Richard, > > on 2021/7/14 下午4:38, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * internal-fn.c (first_commutative_argument): Add info for IFN_MULH. >>> * internal-fn.def (IFN_MULH): New internal function. >>> * tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_recog_mulhs_pattern): Add support to >>> recog normal multiply highpart as IFN_MULH. >> >> LGTM FWIW, although: >> > > Thanks for the review! > >>> @@ -2030,8 +2048,7 @@ vect_recog_mulhs_pattern (vec_info *vinfo, >>> /* Check for target support. */ >>> tree new_vectype = get_vectype_for_scalar_type (vinfo, new_type); >>> if (!new_vectype >>> - || !direct_internal_fn_supported_p >>> - (ifn, new_vectype, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED)) >>> + || !direct_internal_fn_supported_p (ifn, new_vectype, >>> OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED)) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> /* The IR requires a valid vector type for the cast result, even though >>> @@ -2043,8 +2060,8 @@ vect_recog_mulhs_pattern (vec_info *vinfo, >>> /* Generate the IFN_MULHRS call. */ >>> tree new_var = vect_recog_temp_ssa_var (new_type, NULL); >>> tree new_ops[2]; >>> - vect_convert_inputs (vinfo, last_stmt_info, 2, new_ops, new_type, >>> - unprom_mult, new_vectype); >>> + vect_convert_inputs (vinfo, last_stmt_info, 2, new_ops, new_type, >>> unprom_mult, >>> + new_vectype); >>> gcall *mulhrs_stmt >>> = gimple_build_call_internal (ifn, 2, new_ops[0], new_ops[1]); >>> gimple_call_set_lhs (mulhrs_stmt, new_var); >> >> …these changes look like formatting only. (I guess it's down to whether >> or not the 80th column should be kept free for an “end of line+1” cursor.) >> > > Yeah, just for formatting, the formatting tool (clang-format) reformatted > them. Thanks for the information on "end of line+1" cursor, I didn't know > that before. I guess you prefer me to keep the original format? If so I > will remove them when committing it. I was thinking whether I should change > field ColumnLimit of my .clang-format to 79 to avoid this kind of case to > be caught by formatting tool again. Hope reviewers won't nit-pick the exact > 80 column cases then. :)
TBH, 79 vs. 80 isn't normally something I'd worry about when reviewing new code. But I know in the past people have asked for 79 to be used for the “end+1” reason, so I don't think we should “fix” existing code that honours the 79 limit so that it no longer does, especially when the lines surrounding the code aren't changing. There's also a risk of yo-yo-ing if someone else is using clang-format and does have the limit set to 79 columns. So yeah, I think it'd better to commit without the two hunks above. Thanks, Richard
