I think we may want to extend it to more than 2 ints someday, when we run out of bits again. It won't break the existing functionality if 3rd int will be zero by default. That's why I tried to avoid "two" in the name.
Julia > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06 PM > To: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>; Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > Cc: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com>; GCC Patches <gcc- > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yuk...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Yes, you are right, any() is not required. Here is the patch. > > > > Please also attach ChangeLog. > > > > The patch is OK for x86 target, it needs global reviewer approval > > (Maybe Jakub, as the patch touches OMP part). > > I don't like the new class name nor header name, bit_mask is way too generic > name for something very specialized (double hwi bitmask). > > Richard, any suggestions for this? > > Jakub
