On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:19AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > This patch continues the refactoring started with r12-6014.
ab3f5b71dc6e > + and the generic code will issue the appropriate error message. Skip > + this test for functions where we don't fully describe all the possible > + overload signatures in rs6000-overload.def (because they aren't relevant > + to the expansion here). If we don't, we get confusing error messages. > */ > + if (fcode != RS6000_OVLD_VEC_PROMOTE > + && fcode != RS6000_OVLD_VEC_SPLATS > + && fcode != RS6000_OVLD_VEC_EXTRACT > + && fcode != RS6000_OVLD_VEC_INSERT > + && fcode != RS6000_OVLD_VEC_STEP > + && (!VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_VALUE (fnargs)) || n < nargs)) > return NULL; Can you expand a bit on this, give an example for example? It is very hard to understand this code, the way it depends on code following many lines later. > + default: > + ; Don't. I like this better than a BS break statement, but it is just as stupid. If you need this, you don't want a switch statement, but some number of if statements. You cannot use a switch as a shorthand for this because we have a silly warning and -Werror for this use. You probably get easier to understand code that way, too, you can get rid of the above (just do some early returns), etc. Segher
