On 09/08/2023 17:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> writes:
On 08/08/2023 11:51, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> writes:
warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (node->decl), 0,
- "unsupported return type %qT for %<simd%> functions",
+ "unsupported return type %qT for simd",
ret_type);
What's the reason for s/%<simd%> functions/simd/, in particular for
dropping the quotes around simd?
It's to align with i386's error message, this helps with testing as then
I can avoid having different tests for the same error.
I asked Jakub which one he preferred, and he gave me an explanation why
the i386's one was preferable, ... but I didn't write it down unfortunately.
Jakub: do you remember what the reason was? I don't mind dropping
"function", but it feels weird to drop the quotes around "simd".
Seems like, if we do that, there'll one day be a patch to add
them back. :)
After some IRC scrolling, unfortunately my client doesn't have a fancy
search :(
avieira> Andre Vieira
jakub: which one do you prefer?
1:59 PM
"unsupported argument type %qT for simd" (i386)
1:59 PM
"unsupported argument type %qT for %<simd%> functions", (aarch64)
1:59 PM
Gonna change one to be the same as the other ...
2:04 PM
→ gaius joined ⇐ lh_ideapad, egallager and jwakely_ quit
2:36 PM <jakub>
I'd just go with for simd; %<simd%> functions isn't an established term,
it would be either %<declare simd%> functions, but we have also simd
attribute...
