Hi! On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:40:45PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > When a built-in function required by an overloaded function name is not > currently enabled, the diagnostic message is not as clear as it should be. > Saying that one built-in "requires" another is somewhat misleading. It > is > better to explicitly state that the overloaded builtin is implemented by the > missing builtin, so the user knows that the previous error message for the > implementing builtin is because of the overload relationship. > > This patch adjusts the informational diagnostic for both the original support > and the new builtin support. This doesn't affect the test suite, since we > don't test for "note" diagnostics anywhere.
Thanks. And saying "is implemented by __builtin_xyz" where that builtin has not the most obvious name nor is even documented is a lot better than saying that builtin is required :-) > gcc/ > * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin): > Clarify diagnostic. > (altivec_resolve_new_overloaded_builtin): Likewise. Please don't break changelog lines early, especially not after a colon. It looks like something might be missing (and interrupts the flow of reading anyway). Okay for trunk. Thanks! Segher
