On 8/9/24 4:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 03:50:50PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> I'm fine with the TARGET_P10_* macro, since it's more readable than saying >> TARGET_POWER10 && TARGET_ALTIVEC && TARGET_VSX, especially when we use the >> negated version. > > It is not more readable *at all*. What does it even mean? Previous > similar macros (TARGET_P8_VECTOR) meant that various VSX instructions > new in ISA 2.07 were enabled, *or* that some vector insns (either VMX or > VSX, it never was clear which) were enabled, and we were compiling for > 2.07 or later. It meant the former, but was often understood as meaning > the latter. It was a *mess*. We should not make a bigger mess.
I agree the old TARGET_P[89]_VECTOR macros were bad and I am convinced that TARGET_P10_VECTOR isn't good either. What I tried saying above is that TARGET_P10_ALTIVEC and TARGET_P10_VSX to me are more readable than the long line of TARGET_* tests and these are obvious and self-explanatory ...at least to me. Again the above are not separate OPTION_MASK_* thingies, list a #define for the TARGET_* macros that make them up. Peter
