On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 07:50:51AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:18:02PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:32:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > This is not just for reload anymore, so please don't name it that. > > > Renaming > > > things isn't hard, this isn't a public API or anything :-) > > > > This hasn't just be for reload for several years now. > > Yes, and since you are extending it a lot now, it is high time it is fixed. > > > Do you have a name you prefer? > > As I said, I don't think all these things should be lumped together at > all, and also you shouldn't precompute everything (as fixed values > always, after that precompute) into arrays anyway. Instead, use > functions for all accessors, which can have simple and clear logic what > they return when. > > If it is hard to find good names for your interfaces, most likely your > interfaces aren't structured very well.
Here is where I disagree. I tend to think pre-computing the stuff saves time. When you are using it with pre-computed masks and such, it takes 5-10 instructions to make the decision, while if you have to re-do the tests (for example, checking size, checking whether it is int/fp/vector, it can involve many more tests than a simple load/mask type test). But if it is the only way to get things in, I can look at not using the address masks any further, and instead have discreet tests. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797
