Hi!
On Sun, Aug 08, 2021 at 11:53:38AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/6/21 7:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 08:30:50AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>+ const vsc __builtin_altivec_abss_v16qi (vsc);
> >>+ ABSS_V16QI altivec_abss_v16qi {}
> >>+
> >>+ const vsi __builtin_altivec_abss_v4si (vsi);
> >>+ ABSS_V4SI altivec_abss_v4si {}
> >>+
> >>+ const vss __builtin_altivec_abss_v8hi (vss);
> >>+ ABSS_V8HI altivec_abss_v8hi {}
> >Is there any ordering used here? What is it, then? Just alphabetical?
> >
> >That order does not really allow breaking things up into groups, which
> >is the main tool to keep things manageable.
>
> Yes, within each stanza, the ordering is alphabetical by built-in name.
> It seems to me that any other ordering is arbitrary and prone to
> requiring exceptions, so in the end you just end up with a mess where
> nobody knows where to put the next builtin added. That's certainly what
> happened with the old support.
Yeah, there is no great answer here :-( You have thought about it in
any case, so let's see where this goes.
> >>+ const vsc __builtin_vec_init_v16qi (signed char, signed char, signed
> >>char, signed char, signed char, signed char, signed char, signed char,
> >>signed char, signed char, signed char, signed char, signed char, signed
> >>char, signed char, signed char);
> >That is a very long line, can you do something about that, or is that
> >forced by the file format? Can you use just "char"? "signed char" is a
> >very strange choice.
>
> Right now, long lines are there because the parser doesn't support
> breaking up the line. I have an additional patch I put together
> recently that allows the use of escape-newline to break up these lines.
> I am planning to submit that once we get through the current patch set.
Okido. What about the signed char though?
> >>+ pcvoid_type_node
> >>+ = build_pointer_type (build_qualified_type (void_type_node,
> >>+ TYPE_QUAL_CONST));
> >A const void? Interesting. You are building a pointer to a const void
> >here, not a const pointer to void. Is that what you wanted?
> >
> >(And yes I do realise this is just moved, not new code).
>
>
> Sorry, I misdocumented this below. I'll review and make sure this is
> correct everywhere.
"const void" is meaningless, and maybe even invalid C. I think the code
is wrong, not (just) the documentation! This wants to be
void *const
but it is
const void *
as far as I can see?
As I said, this isn't new code, but it seems very wrong!
Segher
