From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209791F45E for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:01:02 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:to:from:cc:reply-to:subject:message-id :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=CRUKrQAHetDm3a0i qfcKZDSNXDG6fyU7MAl3g2Fddhco5T+W9+zI3LF/mawitq/byzvGN3sKIV6eE6Lb dba4YUa69tBcTEMZ6zbr0nsXEYYvRr11ZtZUARYPDJKo+JX8DOipxGeY12nhKxE1 oHSYP6SAXYxJLpMJuaGqOOlgcmw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:to:from:cc:reply-to:subject:message-id :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=/zBbe606NbUfn3RFO1/e+O Pn2Tg=; b=o9O90NTV0EytyKz3/TqQ0XqxnL3xnCE+1NlNzvYnO2FA5dMTLLI5r4 S6DrDH+pA7YSejf6qKS855EfpuTewq5x52wnwveQvIqqFu3/DZxYl9SqvKa6e49W NUvt/46khN0oK2OoWPA2IyeUtmJRUwgIyGem5o7ao7izeE09Czp2Q= Received: (qmail 1602 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 21:00:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 128413 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 21:00:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-40130.protonmail.ch Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:00:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1581627647; bh=tvhVQDJriVDbT0haXe6Y9JyZYORjQpXS6sMDCrM6qBU=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=rNXSlHnDAk6Szz9s0lz/e8b6pqM9t9yzJ2EO1nxX1qKZChk55cx05rhUnTfamFgBa rYzqiAC40C3pnPFewf8gCQFS7nRbNZO5WgbWt29Y1yMU9/byBGNAKRCAV4uEeX0q7S eEDpGqC3C4xRrmihVo9Tu0fl7l2ghXf8FbKfxwBU= To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho From: GT Cc: "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , "tnggil@protonmail.com" Reply-To: GT Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] PPC64: Attach SIMD attribute to cosf, sin, sinf function declarations. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87zhdms0jr.fsf@linux.ibm.com> References: <8736bethj7.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <87zhdms0jr.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Thursday, February 13, 2020 3:19 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > GT tnggil@protonmail.com writes: > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:26 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filh= o tuliom@ascii.art.br wrote: > > The commits whose abbreviated ids are c1782a410f, 1bd6ae3a5a, and 29d3a= dfe09. > > Each of them introduces a test to ensure that feature(s) used in immedi= ately preceding > > patches are available on the system. > > OK. > > > My understanding is that by using git rebase, each of those 3 commits c= an be combined > > with the earlier patch that should have had the feature tests initially= . I am assuming that > > it is ok to re-write history in branch tuliom/libmvec in this manner. I= f not so, then you > > may dismiss the suggestion. > > I don't think these changes are necessary. > > > I wanted to use the same order of defines/undefines as the math-vector.= h for x86-64 at: > > sysdeps/x86/fpu/bits/ > > I also don't think these files need to be identical. > > The patch LGTM if it adds the missing declarations. > Can I let the patch remain as is? Or should I send a new version with only the missing declarations added? Meaning the new patch will not reorder existing lines in the header? Bert.