[PATCH] rs6000: Builtins test changes for BFP scalar tests

Segher Boessenkool segher@kernel.crashing.org
Thu Nov 18 21:32:20 GMT 2021

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!


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list