On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 13:31 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >
> 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:
>
> > I'll dig a bit more, but would handle that in a separate
> > patch.
>
> Can you please
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
On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 05:47 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
Hi,
Thanks Kewen and Segher for the reviews. Additional comments below.
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 03:01:37PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > on 2022/5/26 14:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > on 2022/5/26 04:25, will
Hi!
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 03:01:37PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2022/5/26 14:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > on 2022/5/26 04:25, will schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> We have an assortment of MASK and OPTION_MASK #defines throughout
> >> the rs6000 code, MASK_ALTIVEC and
on 2022/5/26 14:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> on 2022/5/26 04:25, will schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> [PATCH, rs6000] Clean up the option_mask defines
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have an assortment of MASK and OPTION_MASK #defines throughout
>> the rs6000 code, MASK_ALTIVEC
Hi Will,
on 2022/5/26 04:25, will schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> [PATCH, rs6000] Clean up the option_mask defines
>
> Hi,
>
> We have an assortment of MASK and OPTION_MASK #defines throughout
> the rs6000 code, MASK_ALTIVEC and OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC as an example.
>
> We currently #define
[PATCH, rs6000] Clean up the option_mask defines
Hi,
We have an assortment of MASK and OPTION_MASK #defines throughout
the rs6000 code, MASK_ALTIVEC and OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC as an example.
We currently #define the MASK_ entries to their OPTION_MASK_
equivalents so the two names could be used
