On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 09:40:18AM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 05:47 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Yeah, the longer names are a bit annoying in any case. We'll get > > used > > to it (if those long lines are fixed ;-) ) > > Agree. I would not be opposed to somewhat shorter names for these, but > naming is hard, and the long names are existing and sufficient for the > moment.
The longer name is there no matter what we do... uphill battle, I'd rather not fight another one :-) > > But, are those builtin masks still used at all? Can't we just use > > the > > option masks where they still are? The builtins do not use them > > anymore :-) > > They are still referenced in rs6000_builtin_mask_calculate() function, > which is used to assign a value to rs6000_builtin_mask, which is still > in use. But we can easily use the OPTION_MASK things directly there. > I had not yet dug deeper there, but agree it appears that is > only used to print the current options, so could probably be safely > eliminated. And/or that, yes. > I'll dig a bit more, but would handle that in a separate > patch. Can you please make a new patch series that just does everything? This is so much easier to handle for everyone, even you yourself :-) First some small preparatory patches; then the long *boring* patches that are the meat of the matter, but are completely mechanical (formatting notwithstanding), so are easy to review; and then some more small patches to do final cleanup. So each patch will be easy to write, write a commit message for, write a changelog for, and easy to review as well. Long patches are no problem at all if they are completely boring! Segher
