Hi!
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:08:58AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 17:26 +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c 1 blank line(s) in
> > output
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c (test for excess
> > errors)
> > Excess errors:
> > rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df called ...
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > @@ -27485,11 +27485,10 @@ rs6000_const_f32_to_i32 (rtx operand)
> > void
> > rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df (rtx dst, long value)
> > {
> > - printf("rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df called %ld\n", value);
> > - printf("rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df called 0x%lx\n", value);
> > if (((value & 0x7F800000) == 0) && ((value & 0x7FFFFF) != 0))
> > inform (input_location,
> > - "the result for the xxspltidp instruction is undefined for
> > subnormal input values.\n");
> > + "the result for the xxspltidp instruction "
> > + "is undefined for subnormal input values");
> I see the error print statement you changed so that it would not wrap.
> I have always been told it is best not to break the print statement
> across two lines.
It is only broken up in the source code :-)
> The argument is it makes it harder to find it in the
> code when using grep. In this case, it should be clear what file the
> error statement is in. What is your take in general about breaking or
> not breaking the body of an error print statement across lines?
Everyone agrees on that (I hope :-) )
The patch is okay for trunk. Thanks!
Segher
