On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:01:58PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 1/31/22 3:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:22AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> Overloading support remains in rs6000-c.cc. > > So, what is needed to move that as well? Is moving that in the plan? > > No, as explained above, that code needs to stay in the "special" file > that the build machinery understands. It looks very difficult to > tease that apart, so I've given up on that. Sorry!
Heh. And you don't see that as a challenge? Oh well, I could try :-) > >> +/* Support targetm.vectorize.builtin_mask_for_load. */ > >> +tree altivec_builtin_mask_for_load; > > "Support"? What does that mean? Please describe what this tree is. > > That comment is just moved. Yes, but that isn't clear in your patch (series). > This entire patch is just moving code. Not according to the changelog! It is hard to find the five, six, ten places with modification in an 1800-line patch (or what was it). > I already separated that out > from everything else. The only exception is the one I called out at > the beginning, that removing the builtin_mode_to_type[] array should > have been done previously, and it's convenient to just delete it as > part of this patch. > > So I can change these other things that you mention, but that isn't > really the point of this patch, so... I guess please advise. :-) Please make it less work for me to review your patches than it took you to write them! This often means you have to spend a bit more time and thought on it. As a side effect that makes better patches, you have something to win here as well (apart from your patches being reviewed easier :-) ) Segher
