http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, law at redhat dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847 > > --- Comment #34 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- > OK. Then I suggest two immediate things to do. > > 1. Fix the documentation for cc0 targets to indicate that the setter/user no > longer have to be consecutive, particularly in the presence of > flag_trapping_math. Sounds good. I'd document that they still should be consecutive instructions (if interpreting 'consecutive' as following a fallthru path). And say the cc0 setter may be the source of EH edges. > 2. Fault in fixes. While a review of every bit of HAVE_cc0 code is warranted, > I'm not terribly inclined as HAVE_cc0 targets simply aren't that important > anymore. I suppose fixing things as they arise is good enough. But yes, HAVE_cc0 should be phased out - but I suppose it's unlikely to get existing ports to convert ...
