Kewen:
On 6/18/24 20:03, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2024/6/14 03:40, Carl Love wrote:
>> GCC maintainers:
>>
>> Per the comments on patch 0004 from version 3, the removal of
>> The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcvdpuxds_uns and __builtin_vsx_xvcvspuxws was
>> moved to this patch. The rest of the patch is unchanged from version 3.
>> There were no comments on this patch for version 3.
>>
>> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable. Thanks.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> rs6000, Remove __builtin_vsx_xvcvspsxws,
>> __builtin_vsx_xvcvdpuxds_uns, __builtin_vsx_xvcvspuxws built-ins.
>
> Nit: Maybe make it shorter like: Remove built-ins
> __builtin_vsx_xvcv{sp{sx,u}ws,dpuxds_uns}
>
>>
>> The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcvspsxws is a duplicate of the vec_signed
>
> Nit: Strictly speaking, not a duplicate of vec_signed but covered by it.
>
>> built-in that is documented in the PVIPR. The __builtin_vsx_xvcvspsxws
>> built-in is not documented and there are no test cases for it.
>>
>> The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcvdpuxds_uns is redundant as it is covered by
>> vec_unsigned, remove.
>>
>> The __builtin_vsx_xvcvspuxws is redundant as it is covered by
>> vec_unsigned, remove.
>
> As mentioned in the previous review, I'd expect patch 4/13 only focuses on
> extending vec_{un,}signed{e,o} for vector float (aka. __builtin_vsx_xvcvspsxds
> and __builtin_vsx_xvcvspuxds related), and this patch focuses on some built-in
> removals which have been covered by the existing vec_{un,}signed{,e,o}, so
> it can also drop the built-ins:
>
> "The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcvdpsxws is redundant as it is covered by
> vec_signed{e,o}, remove.
>
> The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcvdpuxws is redundant as it is covered by
> vec_unsigned{e,o}, remove."
>
> // copied from 4/13.
Not sure why I didn't move these two with the other two??? Sorry.
Moved them from patch 4.
Carl
