On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:30:48PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > 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?
It is wrong now, in ways that it wasn't wrong before. That is the definition of regression! Segher
