On 06/13/2016 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: ... >> Yes. It is inconsistent to builtin-types.def. Not sure if it is worth fixing >> it. > > I think it wouldn't hurt, it would improve code readability. > And it affects just the single source file.
Done. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00948.html ... > AFAIK other targets test all builtins at least some way. > 10000 testcases is excessive (though e.g. for i386 there are almost 5000 > testcases, and I think about half of them might be testing the builtins), > but i386 e.g. has testcases that include all the intrinsics headers and > force all builtins inlines to be actually not inlines where possible; > or you could e.g. generate a testcase that just tries to use all the > builtins with all the possible argument types, without actually trying > to run it, just try to assemble it. > Or 100 of testcases which each test 100 of cases? I'll have a look whether I can rework the generator a bit. > BTW, looking at vecintrin.h, the > GNU compiler hardware transactional execution intrinsics > comment looks like pasto from htmintrin.h. Fixed. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00947.html -Andreas-