diff mbox series

[Committed] RISC-V: Use MAX instead of std::max [VSETVL PASS]

Message ID 20240107003654.1629705-1-juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
State Unresolved
Headers
Series [Committed] RISC-V: Use MAX instead of std::max [VSETVL PASS] |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check warning Git am fail log

Commit Message

juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai Jan. 7, 2024, 12:36 a.m. UTC 
  Obvious fix, Committed.

gcc/ChangeLog:

	* config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc: replace std::max by MAX.

---
 gcc/config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jeff Law Jan. 7, 2024, 7:11 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 1/6/24 17:36, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> Obvious fix, Committed.
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc: replace std::max by MAX.
Curious why you made this change -- in general we're moving to 
std::{min,max,swap} and away from macro-ized min/max/swap.

Jeff
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai Jan. 7, 2024, 11:07 p.m. UTC | #2 
Since in the previous review from Robin, he have ever asked me change std::max into MAX,
I thought the policy is preferring MAX instead of std::max.

I change the codes to make them consistent but it seems I am wrong.

So is it reasonable that I change all RVV-related codes back to use std::max/min ?

If yes, I can send a patch to adapt all of them in RVV related codes.



juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
 
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2024-01-08 03:11
To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: [Committed] RISC-V: Use MAX instead of std::max [VSETVL PASS]
 
 
On 1/6/24 17:36, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> Obvious fix, Committed.
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
> * config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc: replace std::max by MAX.
Curious why you made this change -- in general we're moving to 
std::{min,max,swap} and away from macro-ized min/max/swap.
 
Jeff
Jeff Law Jan. 9, 2024, 2:38 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 1/7/24 16:07, 钟居哲 wrote:
> Since in the previous review from Robin, he have ever asked me change 
> std::max into MAX,
> I thought the policy is preferring MAX instead of std::max.
> 
> I change the codes to make them consistent but it seems I am wrong.
> 
> So is it reasonable that I change all RVV-related codes back to use 
> std::max/min ?
> 
> If yes, I can send a patch to adapt all of them in RVV related codes.
If Robin asked for MAX, let's leave it as-is.  It's not a hard 
requirement, just a general direction towards std:: when we can.  It may 
be the case that with other codes using MAX nearby that keeping 
consistency is better.

jeff
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc
index 7d748edc0ef..df7ed149388 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc
@@ -1668,7 +1668,7 @@  private:
   }
   inline void use_max_sew (vsetvl_info &prev, const vsetvl_info &next)
   {
-    auto max_sew = std::max (prev.get_sew (), next.get_sew ());
+    int max_sew = MAX (prev.get_sew (), next.get_sew ());
     prev.set_sew (max_sew);
     use_min_of_max_sew (prev, next);
   }
@@ -1702,7 +1702,7 @@  private:
   inline void use_max_sew_and_lmul_with_prev_ratio (vsetvl_info &prev,
 						    const vsetvl_info &next)
   {
-    auto max_sew = std::max (prev.get_sew (), next.get_sew ());
+    int max_sew = MAX (prev.get_sew (), next.get_sew ());
     prev.set_vlmul (calculate_vlmul (max_sew, prev.get_ratio ()));
     prev.set_sew (max_sew);
   }