On 11/18/21 3:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:06:05PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> I don't like that at all. The user didn't write the _vsx thing, and it >>> isn't documented either (neither is the _vec one, but that is a separate >>> issue, specific to this builtin). >> I feel like I haven't explained this well. This kind of thing has been in >> existence forever even in the old builtins code. The combination of the >> error showing the internal builtin name, and the note tying the overload >> name to the internal builtin name, has been there all along. The name of >> the internal builtin is pretty meaningless. The only thing that's >> interesting >> in this case is that we previously didn't get this *for this specific case* >> because the old code went to a generic fallback. But in many other cases >> you get exactly this same kind of error message for the old code. > Yes. And it still is a regression (in *this* case).
Sorry, I don't understand. Why specifically is this a regression? Bill > > > Segher
