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). Segher
