On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:29:58PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > Hi! > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:34:59AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote: > >> OK. As said the patch itself looks good to me, let's go ahead. We > >> have plenty of time to backtrack until GCC 14. > > > > Thanks. Unfortunately when I started using it, I've discovered that the > > CASE_CFN_xxx_ALL macros don't include the CFN_xxx cases, just > > CFN_BUILT_IN_xxx* cases. > > > > So here is an updated version of the patch I'll bootstrap/regtest tonight > > which instead uses CASE_CFN_xxx: CASE_CFN_xxx_FN: > > Shouldn't we change something in that case? The point of these macros > is to wrap things up a single easy-to-use name, so something feels wrong > if we're having to use a repeated pattern like this.
Maybe. But unfortunately not all builtins have those CFN_xxx enumerators, some have just CFN_BUILT_IN_xxx{,L,F}, otherwise have CFN_BUILT_IN_xxx{,L,F,F16,F32,F64,F128} and others have that plus CFN_xxx. So we'd perhaps need some other macros for the all but CFN_xxx and perhaps use ALL only for the cases where it is really all of them. Jakub