Re: Optimizing hypot()

[Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com> writes:
> > No problem, I'd be happy to.  I've added these three to my list of
> > builtins to add to GCC.  I've one or two more builtins clean-up
> > patches to submit first, including a realphabetization of
> > builtins.def, after which I was planning to add several more math
> > builtins anyway.
>
> Any hope of completing the removal of builtins defined in
> builtin-attr.h?

Hi Zack,

Exactly! :>

The game plan is that strftime can't yet be removed from builtin-attrs.def
bacause it's third argument is "const struct tm *tm", and we don't yet
support fuzzy matching beyond the first argument, except for when we use
an additional hack of declaring the prototype without any arguments [which
works for fputs but defeats the whole point of ATTR_FORMAT_STRFTIME_3_0].

Fortunately a patch to fix this is already waiting for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg02031.html
which will then allow the removal of FALLBACK builtins and the removal
of DEF_FN_ATTR_IDENT from builtin-attrs.def (and the resulting dead code
to process it).

Along similar lines, another builtin clean-up patch waiting review is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg02011.html
which allows the removal of FRONT_END builtins (and the resulting dead
code to process them).  However, I've just finished bootstrapping and
am currently regression testing a revised version of this patch that
incorporates Kaveh's suggestion of changing "int unlocked" to bool.

Roger
--